Re: SMC 500/f4.5 Prime
> > I shot lots with this lens but replaced it with the A* 400 f2.8, which > > with teleconverters is much sharper, though it can burn you in the > > Bokeh dept. It should be noted than the A*400 cost a whole order of > > magnitude more than the Takumar 500 f4.5! > > > > The stop down aperture was not a major issue once you got used to it. > > > > This was a very high resolution lens, capable of producing great > > results on film, but it has a major degree of chromatic aberration. I > > don't know how it would do on digital bodies. One plus for APS sized > > digitals - this lens has a minimum focusing distance of 10 meters, so > > you need to use tubes (sometimes lots of them) for smaller birds. That > > would cause vignetting on film -probably would not be a problem on > > *ist-D / DS's. I've got one of the pre-SMC takumar 500/4.5s, which I haven't used much yet. I shot one football game with it mounted on a Nikon D1H with a optical converter, and I found it to be plenty sharp but with odd color balance. It's also nowhere near as easy to handle as a modern internal-focusing super-tele, and the various tripod/mount ways of rotating the lens are none too smooth on my example. Follow focusing sports action with this thing was a challenge. I also shot a softball game with it mounted on a Canon 20D with a non-optical converter. I was shooting through the fence with the hood extended (bad backlight...) so I suspect the fence was acting as a bit of a diffusion filter. These shots were not acceptably sharp even when my focus appeared to be correct. I don't know if this was caused by shooting through the fence or if it has to do with the 20D (higher resolution, different sensor and processing, perhaps different response to lens CA) Color saturation was terrible, but I WAS shooting into backlight, and the color on the Canon 20D is pretty lousy anyway, so I'm not sure that much of that problem can be blamed on the lens. I haven't yet shot the lens on film, or for that matter on a Pentax digital--it's rather a special-purpose beast for me. The long minimum focus compared to a modern IF lens can be an issue for some uses. On the other hand, it's small and quite inexpensive for what it is--compare it to the 500/4 Nikkor, for example. DJE
Re: switching to Canon
> For a decent 20mm, you could pick up a Carl Zeiss Jena 20/2.8 in M42 > mount. If I could FIND one. I know, they exist on e-bay, but I have yet to locate an example for sale from a dealer in the USA. I'm not savvy enough to use e-bay without getting burned. Fuji apparently made some great glass too, but despite having bought what appear to be the last three screw-mount Fujicas in the world, I have NEVER seen a Fuji EBC lens in M42 mount for sale. With patience and searching I have managed to locate pretty much all the Pentax K-mount and M42-mount lenses I wanted eventually. > Probably the best bet w/ wide glass on a Canon is to get something in > the Canon mount though. Even if it's a sigma/tokina/tamron/etc. I have > to wonder how some of the newer digital zooms (18-55, 16-45, etc.) > stack up when compared to the older wide glass. I'd be willing to bet > they'd be as good as some of those early wide-angles. Better, probably, especially if I got something recent. Computer-aided design, advanced aspherics, exotic glasses, etc have made miracles possible. The 15/3.5 was state-of-the-art in 1974, but now we have the Sigma 15-30 and various 12-24s which would have been impossible back then. The 20mm/2.8 EOS lens is apparently mediocre by modern standards but the 16-35/2.8 is supposedly quite good. The goal of the Canon 20D, though, was to be a digital host for my screw-mount lenses--I'd have bought a Pentax DSLR if they'd had one with 8MP, 5fps, a 20 frame buffer, and the ability to see B&W images in B&W in the camera. A nifty Canon ultrawide isn't going to fit on my Spotmatic SPIIs. Perhaps a new cheap zoom (18-55/16-45) or a third party ultrawide would be better than the SMC Takumar 20/4.5 which has troubles with distortion and sharpness towards the corners, but I'm not convinced. My experience with 3rd party lenses has been quite poor compared to Pentax/Nikon glass both in terms of optical performance and build quality. Both Pentax and Nikon have unfortunately recently learned how to make lenses almost as cheap and cheesy as the off-brand guys, and these haven't been impressive either--slow, distorted, loose and plasticy. And none of them are going to fit on a Spotmatic either. Most of the damn things don't even fit on a Nikon F4 or Pentax LX anymore due to the loss of physical aperture-coupling. DJE
switching to Canon
I haven't had much time for PDML or personal photography lately since I'm in school again as well as working full time. Hopefully I did get a pic into the May PUG--I haven't checked yet. If I did, folks will notice that I now have a Canon 20D. As a digital sensor system, it's great. As a camera, I hate it. Some of it is just the way Canons work compared to the way everyone else works, but some of it is in my opionion just bad design. But the acquisition of an expensive Canon doesn't mean I'm ditching Pentax. On the contrary, I'm looking increasingly seriouly at a new or used *ist-D (not DS because I've got too many CF cards to consider SD!). The *ist-D is still as far as I know the only DSLR to allow AA use out of the box, and I wound up buying expensive battery grips to allow my 20D and D100 to use AA batteries. Sure, AAs give no battery life, but they are and probably will continue to be readily availible. I'm betting my $3500 Nikon D1H becomes a paperweight in about 5 years when Nikon is no longer required to sell the proprietary batteries. For my personal uses, a DSLR has to allow AA battery use and accept M-42 screw-mount lenses without an optical adapter (I've got almost all of the Super-Tak and SMC Tak lenses, and they're mighty good). That rules out Nikon and leaves Canon and Pentax (and maybe Minolta and Sigma, which look much more like dodos than Nikon and Pentax to me). I got the 20D because it was (and still is) far and away the most capable camera at its price point. Pentax isn't really competing for the "$1500" DSLR market. They're probably right, as Canon and Nikon have both joined Pentax in aiming at the "$750-1000" DSLR market. Neither 20D nor *istD works all that well with the old Takumar lenses, of course, because there's no mechanical communication. Ironically, my Nikons work BETTER, because they give me realistic focus assist and metering, but using an optical adapter to get infinity focus just kills the image quality. I'll probably get my girlfriend one of the new Pentax 12-24s, too, once Nguyen gets a few put together. I can sympathize with the "full frame DSLR" crowd because wide-angle options for DSLRs remain expensive, rare, and generally inferior (same could be said for FF DSLRs, though). It's even worse in M-42 of course. Pentax supposedly made fewer than 1000 15mm SMC Takumars, so the widest screw-mount I've been able to get my hands on is the mediocre 20/4.5 and a Tamron Adaptall 17mm with no A/M switch. Pity Pentax didn't come out with the K18/3.5 in 1972! DJE
Re: Which would you keep
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:33:30 -0500 > From: Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Which would you keep > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > I would also say keep both, or even decide on one or the other and > then pick up a backup body of the same type so you have two! As all > these cameras get older and older, it seems having a backup makes > sense either for stepping in when something on the more-used body > fails, or simply as a source of parts eventually. They are two very > different cameras, but if you are going to keep just one, perhaps > pick the one with less "mileage" on it, if one is significantly more > "used" than the other. It's no guarantee of longevity, but a 20+ year > old camera that has had an easy life of light use seems to have the > edge over a heavily used body that may have taken thousands more > exposures. > > Both the MX and Super Program were built well, I think, and even > though the Super Program didn't have a 5 fps motor drive, it was able > to handle the 3.5 fps Motor Drive A and had "professional" > aspirations, so it may be fairly durable as far as shutter cycles go. > > Joe I know I'm coming to this thread late, but here's my two cents. 1) keep 'em both. Not enough resale value in either to be worth selling 2) I've never had a SHUTTER failure with a Super Program. With motor drive A, however, ALL of my Super Programs (4) eventually had their film advance gearing go out due to the load from the motor drive. The symptom is that the winding tension gets unusually high and the film advance shuts off before the end of the roll. You can't get the gears any more as replacement parts. It was this exact problem that caused me to ditch Pentax for Nikon, since the top-of-the-line Pentax body at the time was the SF-1 which was a non-starter in the motor-drive department. 3) Motor drive A itself is not particularly robust, nor is the Super Program. Both of my motor drives and most of my Super Programs are suffering from broken parts. Nothing is reparable (no parts), although they are availible on the used market. 4) MXen are hard to repair and very hard to get parts for. My personal experience with MXen is not positive in terms of durability/longevity. OTOH, MXen are pretty much all gears and levers rather than circuits, so theoretically they should be easier to maintain. My tech says they are too fiddly inside for him to touch, but YMMV DJE
Re: Film may not be dead...
> > > But still, I don't know anybody (be it "pro" or "amateur") for > > whom digital has changed life significantly, made them instantly > > happier or helped their karma ;-) while this is not an argument > > against digital (god forbid!), it's an argument against arguments pro > > digital ;-) > > It just goes to show how different experiences can be, I personally know many > people (besides myself) who are much happier in their photographic pursuits > since the widespread adoption of digital imaging technologies. Digital is certainly more time-efficient for me, which means I spend more time taking pictures and less time staring at a sweep clock, or more time at home and less time at work. This might arguably have improved my life. I can't as easily say it's improved my PHOTOGRAPHY. In many ways professional photography is only tangentially about actual photography. DJE
Re: Pentax Manual 35mm K Mount Lenses
Since nobody has yet posted the obvious, THE on-line pentax K mount reference is Bojidar Dimitrov's K-Mount page at: bdimitrov.de/kmp Which tells pretty much everything about every K-mount lens ever made. I tend to get my used K-mount lenses from KEH.com because they have a very large selection and are fairly reliable. There are cheaper ways to buy pentax lenses online. It's hard to find a store outside of major cities that handles a worthwhile collection of used Pentax lenses, leaving online/mail-order as the best solution in most cases. IIRC you were looking for a 35mm f/2.0, of which Pentax made a bunch of versions (K, M, A, and autofocus FA) all of which are quite good. They'll all work on the ME series cameras. You can also fit old Pentax "Takumar" screw mount lenses with an adapter but there's not much reason to do so. In general, "M" series lenses are the easiest to find because they appear to have been made in the largest numbers, plus they don't have the reputation and collector appeal of the older,heavier "K" series (actually labeled "SMC Pentax" with no "K" label, but introduced to go with the "K' series cameras) and don't have the useful electronic connections of the later "A" series allowing full functionality with cameras made after 1983. DJE
Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage
I'm actually moving TOWARDS mechanical cameras. I started with a K2, and ended up 20+ years later with a KX. For all that I own top-of-the-line gear I have used autoexposure exactly twice in the past 11 years, and have never used any "evaluative" metering, relying on center-weighted and occasionally spot. I have only switched over to autofocus on the job in the last 2 years. The stable of M and A cameras I used to use has been replaced by 2 KXen and more than a dozen spotmatics, all of which are fully mechanical and very few of which even have batteries in them. And I'm currently using m42 lenses on a Canon EOS 20D--cutting edge technology meets manual focus and working-aperture metering! DJE
Re: Film is Dying, Chapter 3
> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:05:13 -0500 > From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Subject: Re: Film is Dying, Chapter 3 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > format=flowed; > charset="Windows-1252"; > reply-type=response > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > And, according to our informal count, we sold 74 digital cameras in December > and 8 film cameras. > > Bill Everyone's GOT a film camera already, and the used market is flooded with them. There's little to push people to buy a BETTER film camera now that digital is looking affordable. I agree, though, that film is waning to a niche market. As digital gets cheaper and better it actually makes more economic sense for the P&S crowd to be buying digital (as well as the WYSIWYG advantages). As digital becomes competitive on quality and convenience grounds, film will only be used by those seeking its unique look and advantages. Nobody has yet come up with a good replacement for slide film for some uses. B&W photography has not died with the advent of color, but it has become a niche thing. One thing that nags the back of my mind is battery power, though. Currently, digital cameras are not cheap enough that people will happily replace their camera in 7 years when you can't get the proprietary LION battery that it came with, and I can't see the companies having any reason to sell batteries for older cameras instead of selling newer cameras. You can get batteries for most older film cameras (they only took a couple of kinds), even the oddballs like the spotmatic, and of course most real cameras don't need batteries anyway. Personally, I've made sure I have a way to power all my DSLRs when I can't get batteries for them any more. Kudos to Pentax for the use of a AA-size battery compartment in the *istD, although I'd love to see a proprietary high-capacity LION battery that fits where the batteries go. DJE
Re: screw mount huh?
If I recall correctly: M42 50/1.4 = K 50/1.4 M 50/1.4 basically similar A 50/1.4 = F 50/1.4, and a slightly improved design than the previous Other "K" lenses that appear to be M42 lenses in k-mount: 15/3.5 (although there are two versions of EACH, one asph and one not) 24/3.5? 35/3.5 35/2 85/1.8 105/2.8 (this design is REALLY old as Pentax glass goes) 135/2.5 135/3.5 200/4? 400/5.6 500/4.5 Apparently NOT 28/3.5, which is odd, as the M42 28/3.5 is a great lens. It's interesting to me that many of the lenses on this list are now the rare and desirable ones. I've got all of them in M42 and none of them in k-mount. DJE
Re: SV: The film is dead
>> digital, and the ability to desaturate colour images in editing >> programs, and I don't really see a high end mono only digital as being >> a demand item. >No, I don't think so either. Or, it would at least have to some kind of >setup where the same camera could use B&W *and* colour sensors. But I >guess the situation might be somewhat different in a few years' time >when (I'm assuming) the price of a DSLR has dropped to a fraction of >what it is today. I can see having a B&W mode that basically ignored the bayer grid, but I can't see any reason to make a B&W-only DSLR for the trivial savings or the theoretical increase in quality given the ever-decreasing price and ever-increasing quality of DSLRs. I notice that the foveon sensor, which has the same theoretical advantage of a B&W-only sensor without bayer grid, has gone over like a lead balloon. Sure, the Sigma camera didn't help, but if it were really that much better... >OTOH, *maybe* there could be niche markets that would justify the >development of such a camera, at least if it may be done at a low cost >via updates of existing models, even though the demand wouldn't be very >high. I've been wondering why for instance the press doesn't want B&W >cameras (or maybe they really do?). But perhaps the newspaper prints >have such low quality anyway that using somewhat sub-optimal image data >doesn't make a difference, and of course, you do see an increasing >amount of colour photos in the papers... The original Nikon D1 series had a "B&W" mode. It captured color images (i.e. 3 channels, full file size) but without any actual color. The primary goal appears to have been to allow people who knew their output would be in B&W to see it in B&W on the camera-back screen. There used to be filters to mimic the same effect for pre-visualization. The Canon 20D has a B&W mode too, with "color filter" effects built into the postprocessing. I like B&W enough that this was one of the things that convinced me to buy the 20D and not the *istD. Color catches the eye, and sells newspapers. Newspapers are desperately trying to use as much color photography as they can (it's also expensive to print...) to appeal to readers. This is one of the things that drove newspapers to digital, since color film was a lot more expense and hassle than B&W. Very few photojournalists are big enough stars to work in B&W because they want to, even though I suspect many of us would like to at times precisely because color can be distracting. B&W offers different graphic possibilities, and also a level of abstraction. My girlfriend was only allowed a B&W TV as a child so as to prevent her from thinking that it was "real"! And yes, newspaper quality demands aren't high. I'm using a 2.77 MP Nikon D1H and normally DOWNSIZING the photos for use in a tabloid-size newspaper. One reason that newspapers went digital early is that the theoretical technical superiority of film is unexploited at smaller print sizes. Film is also comparatively weaker at the higher ISOs actually used in journalism. The limits of digital imaging, especially cheap digital imaging, are not a major issue for most users since most people simply don't NEED the quality of Fuji 50D or Kodachrome (including some people who still use the stuff, I suspect...) In my experience, digital photography actually increased the apparent quality of newspaper color photographs compared to film. DJE
alas, poor Pentax
I popped into the local branch of National Camera Exchange, probably Minnesota's largest photo dealer, to pick up an M42 adapter for a Soligor 135/1.8 T-mount lens I just acquired. While I was there, I noticed that there were no Pentax cameras to be seen. When I asked, I was told that while they still carried Pentax "digital" they had stopped carrying Pentax "SLRs" because they hadn't been selling well for a while. Given that this is where we got my girlfriend's *istD, I don't know how they currently define this camera, but I'll bet they don't carry it any more. I suspect that the behaviour and attitudes of their sales staff had something to do with the fact that they didn't sell Pentaxes (and now appear to be the only shop in the universe with more Nikon than Canon), but it doesn't bode well for Pentax. Of course local camera stores are struggling with competition from electronics stores and the internet, so they aren't going to handle anything marginal. On a related note, the Soligor 135/1.8 makes me really appreciate the Pentax 135/1.8 A*. The Soligor is amazingly awful at wide stops, kinda like what I'd expect out of an M 85/2 if you could open it up to f/1.0. It's very low in contrast, not at all sharp, and highlights have a little halo around them, plus there's a sort of fog everywhere--generally like shooting through thin fog or a window you have breathed on. The big front element (82mm filter!), lack of coating (1970 design), and cheesy glass (nikon's 135/2 isn't great, and isn't "ED") are probably to blame for a lot of it, and it might behave well at f/5.6 or so with a decent lens hood. The Pentax 135/1.8 A* wasn't stunningly sharp at 1.8 and was noticeably longer, but it handled better, was better balanced, and was a lot better performer. Of course it was about 15 years more modern. OTOH, the Soligor might be a really nifty portrait lens if I can get my studio flashes dialed down far enough to allow f/1.8 at ISO 200. DJE
Re: Question about ED Glass
>> Of what is it composed? I understand that it used to include calcium >> fluorite, but apparently that stuff caused other problems and something >> else is used now. Anyone know? >I don't know what glass formulations Pentax used in it's ED elements >however I >doubt that they would have been fluorite based as use of this material >was >pretty much the domain of Canon. It was difficult to implement flourite >lenses >but I don't remember if it oxidized or was hydroscopic. Someone suggested "marketinium", which is essentially true in that "ED" glass is merely a name and doesn't have to mean anything specific, or even consistent. However, it usually refers to glass with a very low (high?) index of refraction and such, and there are very few ways to make such glass. Most of them involve exotic elements. The actual formulation of them is apparently a deep dark secret. Pentax has used quartz and I think fluorite (flourite it primarily used in baking...) in the old ultra-apo Takumar lenses. Canon may be the only company to use pure fluorite, because as I understand it there are some practical difficulties such as it being very soft, temperature-sensitive, and hard to make in the lab in large bits. Apparently even Canon has moved away from pure fluorite in many cases. Rumor has it that Nikon ED glass is fluoro-crown, which is I think fluorite bits on top of good glass bits somehow. What Pentax uses I don't know, although it pretty much has to be similar to what everyone else uses if it in fact has the same properties. DJE
Re: M42 ultra-wide
> Here is the difference between a Nikkor 14/2.8 full frame and the > Pentax DA 14/2.8: > > Nikon > street price: $1399.00 > weight: 23.6 oz > size: 3.8 X 3.4 > > Pentax > Street price: $700.00 > weight: 14.8 oz > size: 3.3 X 2.7 As I've said, I bought a used Sigma 14/3.5 (for $500-ish) instead of the Nikkor, and I regret it. If I had the money back, though, I wouldn't buy the 14mm Nikkor. I'd buy the 12-24/4 Nikkor, which is an APS-format lens. Since I never needed a 14mm lens back when my 20mm lens gave me that FOV, I'd have bought a $700 Nikon APS-sized 14mm lens if they made one despite its lack of 35mm coverage. The great big bulbous front element of a 14mm 35mm-format lens is very very hard to protect from light coming in at bad angles, giving you nasty ghosting and flare. It's very hard to protect from anything more substantial than light coming in at any angle, 'cause you can't put a skylight filter on it. From what I've heard, the older 15mm lenses are worse than the current 14s in these respects. The 12-24 has a wider angle of view, has a mildly useful lens shade, and takes front filters. This is a convincing argument for using an APS-format lens if your goal is to have an ultra-wide angle of view on an APS-format DSLR.(size is hard to compare, since the 12-24 is a stop slower, but also a zoom. certainly the balance of the 12-24 is different than the very front-heavy 14) The 14mm Nikkor is not a bad performer on the 2.77mp D1H (although the Pentax might be better, but there's no way to really compare them unless you're Cotty and can kick-fit them both onto a Canon body) I've heard that it doesn't fare so well on Nikon's 5 and 6mp DSLRs, and that the corners are soft at wider apertures on film. OTOH the FOV on film is stunning (whereas the 12-24 starts to vignette at 16-18mm on film), and it's a great improvement on earlier ultra-wides. DJE
Weak Batteries - ME Super
>From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >When I last used my ME S I noticed that, while the shutter speed >indicator >lights in the viewfinder were working, they didn't match my judgement of >what the correct exposure should be. Speeds were off by a couple - three >stops at times, other times they seemed closer to accurate. >I've never encountered this exact problem before. Will a battery that is >low on power, in this case a lithium cell, cause such problems, or might >there be another factor involved? EVERY ME SUPER I HAVE OWNED (5) has done this to me. I believe the problem is either corrosion/filth in the film speed dial, corrosion/filth in the meter cell area, or corrosion of the meter cells. I'm assuming it was recommending underexposure of about three stops? (mine did) Try wiggling the film speed setting and see if that gives a temporary reprieve. I believe a simple cleaning of the affected part (not even a full CLA) will fix the problem. I had most of mine done before I gave up on them. > If such is the >case, here's another argument against relying too much on >the built in meter of the camera and electronics. Had I not been paying >attention to the shutter speed readout, as one may easily do when >shooting >aperture priority with an automatic camera, and not trusted my own >experience as to what the proper exposure should have been, there'd be a >lot of poorly exposed frames on that roll of film. Amen to that. Knowing light well enought to suspect that your meter is misleading you is a critical skill. I spent a lot of time in college eyeballing light and then taking a meter reading to check myself, so that I can now eyeball most situations to within a stop. I also shoot on manual all the time now, because I've got a much better idea what I'm looking at than my camera does. DJE
M42 ultra-wide
-- Tom C. said: >IMO, the whole marketing of APS digital lenses is a shennanigan. Knowing >what I know (which may not be alot), if I was buying into Pentax digital >for >the first time and had no existing lenses, I still would not buy the APS >matched lenses. I'm not sure it's a shennanigan. I think it's a necessary stopgap. I also think that the APS-format might be here to stay even when 35mm-format is more affordable. APS-format lenses are only being put out at ultra-wide focal lengths where the smaller coverage circle is a real help in producing a lens with very short focal length that has market-acceptable specs. The only other APS-format lenses are cheap kit-lenses that are also ultra-wide at one end and presumably are taking advantage of the lesser coverage area to make smaller cheaper lenses, as fits a kit-lens. This suggests that manufacturers consider it a stopgap, or we'd see more APS-optimized lenses. Eventually, I should think that manufacturers would be able to put out 35mm-format sensors at a reasonable price point, but it's going to be a couple of years. For those folks who need an ultra-wide NOW the APS-format ones are a useful stopgap and/or a cheaper solution than buying a 35mm-format ultrawide. I'm also not convinced that the general photography market needs 35mm-format sensors in its digital cameras. Most pros seem to be willing to buy a 14mm lens to get their ultra-wide view back, and are really glad to have the 1.3-1.6x magnification factor on their teles. You can get basically 28mm field-of-view with standard 20mm lenses and 17 or 18-xx zooms, and most amateurs don't seem to need anything wider than 28mm FOV. >From what I've seen, most amateurs more often can't get close enough, rather than can't get far enough away, so the crop factor is a bonus. It seems rare that amateurs enlarge much to or past 8x10, often much less, so even with some cropping the current 6MP cameras have got enough quality, especially compared to 110 or APS film. I suspect that 12mp or so is starting to hit the limit of acceptable noise in an APS-sized sensor with the current technology, so if the standard for pro and semi-pro resolution keeps climbing the manufacturers will either have to go to 35mm-format (it'd be dumb to go with something BETWEEN 1.5 and 1.0x, invalidating those APS-format lenses) or improve the technology to allow higher sensor density while maintaining acceptable noise. Otherwise, APS-format is probably going to remain the standard because it is cheaper, allows design of smaller and cheaper lenses, allows use of smaller and cheaper lenses (would you rather carry a 200/2.8 or a 300/2.8?), and the 1.5x crop actually helps most users. DJE
Re: M42 ultra-wides
herb said: >the Sigma 12-24 full frame is large and generally soft until stopped way >down. even then, it is soft compared to 16-45 at any aperture. the >difference is that the Sigma is better corrected for chromatic abberation >than the Sigma 15-30 that i used to have. Isn't the 16-45 a DA lens? The Sigmas are full-frame, which accounts for their size, even at very small maximum apertures. Sigma apparently is one to push the envelope on focal lengths and such, which might account for their reputation of poor quality. My Sigma 14/3.5 is nasty at wide stops. fra said: >Do you think that it is a good idea to put the 3.5/15 on a DSLR? As >others has reported here, its performance on a DSLR is not staggering, >apparently. Is it just nostalghia for M42 glass? You could get a >better wideangle for a cheaper price probably. IMO As I said, I've heard rumblings that its performance on a FILM SLR is not staggering. This design was pushing the limits in its day, which was 30 years ago. I've definitely heard the complaints about its peformance on the *istD (which is the only DSLR it fits in K-mount version). Nikon's (maybe Tamron's but it doesn't really matter) 14/2.8 apparently struggles on the higher-res nikon DSLRs, so it may not just be Pentax's problem. I've NEVER seen a nikon DSLR used with a nikon 15/3.5 on it, which intrigues me. The reason I posted, though, was to ask about the theory of "a better wideangle for a cheaper price" in M42 mount, and I haven't heard many suggestions. Remember that the goal is to use a Canon DSLR as a digital back for my huge existing M42 lens collection. I could always get a Canon AF ultra-wide, or a cheaper Canon MF ultra-wide with an adapter, but that would be a violation of the initial intent (M42 on EOS). Mostly it IS nostalgia for the old M42 glass (I've got state-of-the-art Nikon stuff for unromantic functional needs), which is better built and better optically than a lot of what has been made since. There's also something deliciously sassy about being able to take great pictures with the latest Canon technology wedded to a pre-set Takumar from the '60s. The down-side of '60s and '70s lens design appears to be that anything wider than 20mm was and is very hard to come by, and I can't afford the nifty Canon full-frame DSLR to get around the problem. DJE
Re: Pentax-F 24-50 F4
Jens asked: >Any comments on this lens, please? >I could be a very reasonabley priced standard zoom "4/35-80mm" for Pentax >*ist D? I don't own one, but from reading other people's comments I'm given to believe that it's not great. The M24-35 is supposedly better. I'd expect a fair amount of barrel distortion in a 24-50 given what the M24-35 does. To be fair, I haven't heard that ANY manufacturer's 24-50 zoom was very good except the 25-50 Nikkor, which is apparently quite large and heavy, and a first generation, prove-we-can-do-it lens. Either 24-50 is hard to do, even at f/4, or the intended market for the 24-50/4 zoom was pretty undemanding in quality. I'm kinda surprised, because 24-50 (on film) always seemed like it made a whole lot of sense and I'd have thought that photojournalists would have been all over them as they subsequently jumped on the 20-35 and 17-35s, if anybody had made a good one. That said, I've got a 24-50 f/3.3-4.5 AF nikkor--which has a reputation for mediocrity among Nikon users--to use as a "35-80" zoom on my Nikon D100, just as you suggest. What I really wanted, of course, was a 20-50 zoom to give "28-80" rather than "35-80". I think Sigma makes or made a 20-40 zoom. DJE
Re: M42 ultra-wides
Thanks to whoever tipped me off to kevinscameras.com, but the 15/3.5 lenses they have are SMC-Pentax (K-mount) not SMC-Takumar (M42). K-mount 15s aren't that hard to find since they were made in K and A versions from 1975 until 1980-something and apparently still availible by special order, and I'll bet that third-party 14/2.8s can be had in K-mount. M42 is a lot trickier since they only made 15/3.5s in M42 mount from 1974-1975 and the only new M42 cameras made since the 1970s are those retro Bessaflex thingies and oddball Russian models. Believe it or not, somebody makes an adapter to put K-mount lenses on M42 cameras, but it's got glass in it and it's likely to really destroy the optical performance of something like a 15mm lens, even after the APS-sized sensor crops the edges off. DJE
Re: New toy!
> -- > > OK, nothing spectacular, especially in digital era :-) But I couldn't resist > and bought nice KX Still great camera, with enough features for good > photography in its pure form... Beautiful body finishing quality, nice > shutter sound. True pleasure to use, despite I have and use DSLR... Are > there still any users of this body here? I've got two that I picked up as my re-investment in a minimal K-mount system after getting rid of a bunch of old ME supers, MXen, and Super Programs. They've got almost everything I want in a kick-around camera except a split-image focusing aid. The only problem is that both of the meters appear to be off by a stop or two, and my tech tells me that the inaccuracy may not be linear, which is to say that they can't be repaired to read correctly at all EVs. Another potential problem is that they are essentially irreparable due to lack of parts. I agree that they have that glorious old-fashioned solid feel that I love the Spotmatics for. Ironically, if the meters turn out to be unusably off the only things the KXen have over my batteryless Spotmatic IIs are the K-mount and the aperture-view window. DJE
Re: M42 ultra-wide
William Robb said: >The A 15mm f/3.5 offers 35mm coverage with 13 elements in 12 groups, >3.1 inches long by 3.3 inches in diameter, and a comparatively >porcine 20.9 ounces. It also gives up uncomfortably close to a stop >of speed. Assuming it's useful wide open, which I've heard that it might not be for some people's standards--if the 14 is better wide open then it's more like a two stop difference. I haven't had the money to fiddle with anybody's 15mm lens to know how good they are at any aperture--most of the 15mm lens designs are rather old. I bought a cheap sigma 14mm lens and have regretted it every time I use it. >The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is also very big, a little bigger than the >Pentax 15mm and 2.5 ounces heavier. Wrong comparison. The 15/3.5 Pentax dates optically to 1974. The 14/2.8 Nikkor to the late '90s or early '00s. Compare the 15/3.5 Pentax to the 15/3.5 AIS Nikkor which is much closer to a contemporary. The 14 Pentax is much more rightly compared to the 14 Nikkor, despite one being 35mm and the other being APS-format. >While the APS coverage lens is certainly smaller and lighter, it >isn't hugely smaller, and surprisingly heavy. One doesn't know what a 14/2.8 non-DA Pentax would look like. The 12-24 APS-format Nikkor isn't small, light, or cheap as most people assumed an APS-format lens would be, but it's probably a lot smaller and cheaper than it would be in 35mm format (assuming you could even do it with 35mm coverage...) >There is certainly the matter of cost to factor in, the 15mm was a >bloody expensive lens. What gets me is that I HAVE seen 15/3.5 Pentax lenses (K-mount, never M42, of which there are apparently less than 1000) for sale, for less than $1000 used. The 15/3.5 Nikkor, which is fairly common on the used market right now, goes for over $1000 despite the availibility of Nikkor and third-party 14/2.8 lenses that are AF, newer, and from everything I've hear much better optically. The 14mm Nikkor goes for something like $1300 new--I wish I'd bought one instead of the crappy Sigma I did buy. DJE
RE: M42 ultra-wide
Tom said: >I'm coming to the conclusion that I can't find a really good reason to >buy an 'APS' sized lens, especially if one already has some regular 35mm >lenses that work perfectly fine on the *ist D. The main reason for 'APS' sized lenses is to make ultra-ultra-wides and ultra-wide zooms that are not obscenely big, expensive, or awful. Pentax doesn't make a 35mm-format 14mm lens, so you HAVE to get the DA, or a third party lens. This is a bit odd, since almost EVERYBODY else makes a 35mm-format 14mm lens. Increasingly, another reason is to make lenses for DSLRs smaller and cheaper. A third viable reason for 'APS' format lenses is that the front element can be smaller, which is a real advantage in some ways. >If Pentax were to release a FF >digital body that is affordable (or becomes affordable), then a >wide-angle APS prime would only be of real value on the body with an APS sized >sensor. Don't hold your breath. It will probably happen sooner or later, but by then the current generation will be totally obsolete. The bottom of the FF market right now is about $4500, with the next jump up at $8000. Most people simply don't need FF sensors. >It seems to me that digital bodies and lenses would quickly become >disposable (throwaway/almost never used). I'd rather buy a 35mm lens >than >invest in the smaller format lenses. Most DSLRs are owned by certain types of professionals (high volume, high speed) and in those fields cameras, especially digital cameras, ARE considered expendable. It's cheaper to use up a DSLR in three years and buy a newer model than it is to pay film costs for three years. That's the main reason many genres of pro photography have gone digital. >In a couple of years I bet the *istD will be the equivalent of the Pentax >110 SLR. Lots of people say that the current 6MP SLRs have sufficient quality to do pro work. If that's true, they'll always be good enough even if state-of-the-art is a lot better. 110 was always acknowleged to be a tradeoff in quality for size and ease-of-use. You rarely saw "serious" photographers with 110 cameras. DJE
M42 ultra-wide
I've got a Canon 20D on order (which will come in "when it comes in", according to my supplier) with the single intent of being a digital imaging back for my M42 lenses. I decided that for me the 20D was a better option than the Pentax models currently on the market. For most of what I'd like to do, I've got the glass I need (that's why I bought the camera...) but that nasty 1.6x crop factor means that my 20/4.5 is going to frame like a 32mm lens, leaving me a little weak at the wide end. I'm quite used to having a 28mm lens field of view availible. I've got a Tamron adaptall 17/3.5, but it doesn't have an A/M lever and the Canon obviously doesn't have a Spotmatic push-plate, so it's a 17/3.5 ONLY unless I tape over the pin or something equally drastic. I've got a 17/4 Takumar fisheye, so if I can figure out exactly the right correction I can rectilinearize it on the computer, but this lens has its issues in use. What other options have I got? Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually availible now and then? From what I've seen I'd probably pay less than $1000 if I could find one. Nobody seems to make a 14mm in adaptall or M42 mount. I've seen a Sigma 18/3.2 listed in M42 mount, but I'm reluctant to commit money to a lens that may not have an A/M lever and probably has old Sigma "quality" as well. DJE
Re: Best Screw Mount Lenses
>My late father-in-law left me a pristine chrome Spotmatic II >with a S-M-C Takumar 50mm f1.4 and a few accessories. >The meter even works! I was checking some of the usual sites, >but could find little information regarding which lenses to look >for and which to avoid. I did read the 85 f1.8 is a great lens >and Mike Johnston just wrote that the 35 f2 is pretty good, >but that's about it. If you could point me to a site or have an opinion > I would like to hear it. Thanks. >Jim A lot of screw-mount lenses are the same optical design as their "K" successors, so often you can use opinions about those to guide you. My personal opinions: 50/1.4 indeed is very good. 35/2 (old and new) also very good--ALL Pentax 35/2 designs appear to be very good. 85/1.8 is very good but I find that at middling apertures the 105/2.8 is better and I am quite fond of the 105 in general. I believe most versions of the 105/2.8 are the same as K105/2.8. I find the 28/3.5 (49mm filter version) to be very good indeed, whereas the wider 24mm and 20mm lenses were pushing the limits of design in their day and are not great--the 20mm is a bit infamous. The 24 isn't really all that bad for a 24, but noticeably worse than longer focal lengths as is the case with most brands. The 150/4 (later version, which all SMC-takumars are, and is apparently the same as the K lens) is quite nice, and pretty much all the 200s (3.5 and 5.6 pre-set, and 4.0 which = K 200/4) are solid peformers but biggish by modern standards. The 300, 400, and 500mm lenses are quite credible but have been eclipsed by modern designs with internal focusing (easier to use) and low-dispersion glass. Of the three long lenses, so far I find the 500 to be the best optically but the hardest to use--but I haven't shot a whole lot with any of them. A warning that focusing a pre-set or manual lens at f/4.5 or f/5.6 is a challenge, especially if the subject is moving, which is in its way a recommendation for the 77mm filter version of the 300/4.0 because it alone of the big glass has automatic aperture. 85/1.9 precursor to the 85/1.8 is apparently loved by many, but supposedly not as sharp as the later version--it's probably a case of the "portrait feel". 135/2.5 (later SMC version--hard to distinguish and to find) is the same as K lens and has a great reputation--the earlier one isn't as good at least at wide stops. Many love the 35/3.5, whereas I find my own version to be mediocre--perhaps a bad sample. The 55/1.8 or 55/2.0 (same optics) is apparently mediocre or worse at wide and middling stops and improves markedly past about 5.6. my recs in order of preference: 28/3.5, 105/2.8, 85/1.8, 150/4, 200/4 DJE
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
>If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, > what would you want it to be? >My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost > by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper >system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). > Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. >Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. I don't think anybody can build a $500 body that is "built to last a lifetime" anymore. The Nikon FM-3a MIGHT be such a creature. Realistically, nobody builds $500 bodies anymore. >Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. >They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). I guess given what I currently do with Pentax I'd like to see something like an updated MX or a well-built ZX-M with AF. It'd be small and straightforward, with mechanical connections but the ability to use various forms of automation. Ideally, it'd be at least partly mechanically controlled. One could also look at such a camera as a smaller and more modern LX, but I agree that the "system camera" features such as a removable prism and add-on motor-drive are unnessesary. It wouldn't be cheap due to the build quality, but $500 might be achievable. Unfortunately, from what I understand Nikon isn't selling a lot of FM-3a cameras... DJE
Re: Super Takumare 35/3.5
> I've had this lens in Super Takumar and SMC Pentax iterations. It's a > little jewel. And while some complain of its slow aperture, by todays > standards, where slow, variable aperture zooms are becoming quite common, > this lens may recapture some of its lost luster, when faster primes > dominated. It's a great optic! > > Shel I appear to have a lemon. My Super Takumar 35/3.5, s/n 4137xxx, tests as the worst 35mm prime I own in terms of sharpness and contrast. It appears to be undamaged physically and optically and to focus correctly. I have heard a lot of people praise this lens, so one of a couple of things must account for it: 1) my lens is defective or damaged somehow 2) my test was defective somehow 3) light somehow got into the lens at a funny angle, and the lack of SMC made itself known in the test 4) at identical apertures my other 35mm primes are stopped farther down and thus perform better 5) the 35/3.5 is in fact a good lens but my other 35mm primes are all better (nikkor AF 2.0, Super Tak 2.0 m1, Super Tak 2.0 m2, A 2.0) Certainly the 35/3.5 is small, light, and cheap, and probably a great lens if you can work with a slow 35. Personally, I tend to work wider and/or faster (very few of my zooms are "slow, variable aperture") and don't use this lens much at all. OTOH, I had a 35/1.4 nikkor and don't miss it. Actually, most of Nikon's 35s are mediocre, especially their answer to the 35/3.5. Pentax has always made great 35s, which I why I really wonder if my 35/3.5 is a lemon. DJE
Hey Cotty!
Can you drop me a line off-list. I wanna chat about that Canon D60+K-mount rig you were using, as now looks like a great time for me to get a used 10D to do a similar thing with M42 lenses. DJE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Pentax SMC-A 16/2.8
> Thanks for the reminder. There were some good photos of the lens and > I've never seen one before but had I known I would not have inserted the > link. > > It is on Boz's site but no mention of it on Stan's. Somewhere I read > some discussion regarding the central area of a fisheye but my short > term memory is really short. > > > > What is known about the Pentax SMC-A 16/2.8? Any opinions? It is a > > > fisheye. On an istD would the fisheye be as extreme as on film? My girlfriend has a 16/2.8 A fisheye and a *istD. I think they've been used together once, just to see what happens. I've used my 17/4 takumar fisheye a little more on my Nikon digitals, which have the same AOV as the *istD, although the 17 is only about 170 degrees AOV (and that's on the diagonals, remember). Distortion of the image with the fisheyes on a DSLR is a lot less than it is on a film SLR, but a lot more than your average ultrawide. It can be corrected with fairly simple hacking in photoshop (with the spherize filter) to look just a little odd. Of course, with careful use the distortion of a fisheye can be pretty subtle anyway. The field of view is pretty much what you'd expect from multiplying the focal length by 1.5--i.e. my 17 fish is just a hair less wide than a 24 on a film camera, and the 16 fish is just about even with the 24. Remember that most DSLRs (and most Pentax film cameras) do not have 100% viewfinder coverage which messes up your estimation of FOV a bit. I found the "24mm" field of view that one gets with a fisheye on a DSLR a real disappointment compared to the 170-180 degree view you get on film. I'd recommend a 14 or 15mm lens if you really want that ultrawide FOV. ANYTHING that wide, fish or rectilinear, has some real problems with the sun hitting the glass. The fisheyes seem to handle it better, and are in general smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the super-ultrawide rectilinears. On a film camera, I like the A16 fisheye a lot. I find it to be a better performer than my non-smc Takumar 17 fisheye in terms of sharpness (and of course contrast). It's a bit big and heavy and takes some babying to protect the front element. Given my needs and resources, I'd personally go for the K17/4 fisheye rather than the A16 (smaller, cheaper, easier to find) but I think the A lens is the better one. On a DSLR, I'd almost advise patience. I bought a sigma 14mm to give me back what my 20mm lens used to do on film. In common with all 14/15mm ultrawides it is big, front-heavy, expensive, has mediocre edge sharpness, and has severe problems with flare and ghosting. Compared with Pentax or Nikon 20/2.8 or 20/4 lenses it's a dog, with the convenience of a yak. Eventually they'll have to come out with 35mm-sized digital sensors (that work well and don't cost as much as some cars), or MUCH better mega-ultrawide lenses. I find it intriguing that Nikon is the only company I know of that currently offers a fisheye designed to give 180 degree coverage on a DSLR. DJE
optics question
OK, I did the obvious thing and put that 500/4.5 takumar on my M42->NikonF optical converter and mounted it on my D1H and went out shooting youth football. I have a few observations, and a question. 1) Sharpness is really quite good, even at the edges. Within my limited experience with both lenses I'd suggest that the 500/4.5 is giving a better optical performance than my 300/4 takumar. Both lenses appear to be equal to the "K" versions, but without SMC. 2) Contrast isn't great, as would be expected without SMC. Color fringing is visible under adverse conditions, as would be expected without APO glass. Color rendition on a Nikon digital is a little odd, which may be the glass and coating. Digital is not going to handle old glass and coatings well, I suspect. Also, Nikon coatings may be inferior to SMC, but they have a very good reputation for delivering consistent color rendition across the range of Nikon lenses, which may mean that the D1H is essentially expecting a "Nikon" color rendition. 3) The lens CAN be used for action, although the location of the helicoid behind the tripod mount and the lack of internal focusing make it a lot harder to manage than a modern design. Lack of auto diaphragm sure encourages shooting at or near open aperture! Of course we're talking about a 40-year old design here, and one that I paid less than 20% of the going price of a used 500/4 EDIF for. That, and it's impossible to fit a 500/4P Nikkor to my Spotmatics. The question is, why does it work so well on the optical M42->F adapter? Both it and the 200/3.5 takumar (which appears to have an almost identical 4/4 telephoto optical formulation) are quite sharp, even at the edges, on the adapter. By contrast, my 28/3.5 takumar shows noticeable degradation of sharpness on the adapter, especially at the edges, on film. Without the adapter, it's competitive with almost any 28mm ever made, at least on film. My 20/4.5 takumar is unusably soft and otherwise nasty-looking even at the center on the D1H and adapter. Of course the 28 is a more complicated optical design (7/7) and is a retrofocus design. The 20 is yet more complicated optically (11/10) and is essentially a double retrofocus design, plus it isn't the best lens Pentax has ever made even without the adapter--some noticeable distortion and loss of sharpness towards the edges. Is it the inherant complexity of the wides that makes them suffer so much on the adapter, or the inherant simplicity of the teles that keeps them from suffering? Perhaps the optical tricks retrofocus wide-angles have to play are to blame instead, or the distortion and other aberations of early wide-angles? I note that most pros only use 1.4x teleconverters on long telephotos, which presumably have the same virtue of not having to bend the light as oddly as zooms and wides. I'm really curious how the converter and D1H fare with some of the classic Pentax 5-element mid-teles, such as the 105/2.8 and 150/4. Perhaps if Pentax can stay in the race long enough they'll put out a DSLR that will win me over. If not, I'll probably have to suck it up and buy a Canon, because the optical adapter thing with Nikons is a pain. DJE
Re: some lens ponderings
>> Right now the "digital lenses" on the market tend to be ultra-wides or >> wide-zooms, which are not easy to produce fast for any image circle. >> There's not much incentive for manufacturers to make, say, a 33/1.4 DA >> (especially if you are one of those companies that actually MADE a >> 35/1.4). Personally, I'd LOVE to see a 60/1.4 DA or 20/1.4 DA to get >> some of my favorite focal lengths back, but I don't think it's gonna >> happen. Most pros can apparently now work exclusively with f/2.8 >>lenses >> and get away with it, which means mostly zooms except at the extremes. >And there are some lenses with image stabilisation in Canon and Nikon, >allowing you to shot at speeds up to three stops slower than normally and >achieve sharp pictures. If you have f2.8 zoom that would be as you had f1 >one in terms of possibility to shot without the risk of image shake... Assuming your SUBJECT is not moving. VR/IS only really counters CAMERA movement. Also, most if not all VR/IS lenses are tele zooms or ultra-tele primes. Yeah, you can hand-hold a wide a lot slower, but I can do things with my 28/1.4 that I cannot do with my 20/2.8 on a DSLR. >> Look at the olympus E-system. The lenses are digital only, and pretty >> fast. Of course the sensor is tiny. >That's not true. 4/3 sensor is almost as tall as APS sized one. It is >only >narrower due to aspect ratio (4:3). Last I looked, the crop factor was 2.0x. That's a small sensor. Sensor size doesn't matter, of course, assuming that sensor quality is OK and optics designed for the sensor are OK. I'm real leery, because most ultrawides wider than 20mm I've used are not great, whereas most ultra teles are quite good these days. This suggests that a bigger sensor tends to allow better (but bigger and more expensive) lenses. >> The only place I see pros using 1.4x converters on zooms is on the very >> highly evolved 70-200 ultrapro things from Nikon and Canon. Apparently >> the quality loss isn't unacceptable when using these very good >> teleconverters with what are arguably the best lenses N and C have ever >> produced. Oddly, I don't think either company makes a 100-300/4 >>EDIF-IS >> zoom. Sigma, of course, makes a 100-300/4. >I don't think there is any significiant loss of quality with not only >genuine 1.4x TCs, but even with cheaper constructions like Tamron 1.4x. >We have made some tests with Dario using SMC-F* 300/4.5 and this Tamron, > and the difference in sharpness between naked lens and coupled with >teleconverter was neglible. 2x TCs is another story though. With primes. Zooms don't normally handle even a 1.4x teleconverter well. I don't know about 3rd party teleconverters, but I know that the 1.4xS Pentax converter mated to the 300/2.8 A* was a noticeable loss in quality. Yes, it should have been a 1.4xL converter for best results, but that does prove that converter quality or design counts. It also seems to vary a lot on a lens-by-lens basis. The F* 300/4.5 is an exceptional lens. Most pros I know readily use a 1.4x TC with tele primes, sometimes even with 70-200 zooms. None I know use a 2x converter. Nikon has just put out a 1.7x that, if it actually works well, might intrigue me. I only USE one TC, the Nikon TC14B, and only with my 300/2.8 AIS. I own a 1.4xS pentax (works OK with the M150), a 2x Tokina (broken), and a 2x spiratone screwmount (basically untried). DJE
Re: Some lens ponderings
>Just out of curiosity, I was wondering how it is digital lenses don't >seem >to be very fast. I would have thought it'd be easier to produce speedy >glass for an APS sized sensor. Any thoughts? Right now the "digital lenses" on the market tend to be ultra-wides or wide-zooms, which are not easy to produce fast for any image circle. There's not much incentive for manufacturers to make, say, a 33/1.4 DA (especially if you are one of those companies that actually MADE a 35/1.4). Personally, I'd LOVE to see a 60/1.4 DA or 20/1.4 DA to get some of my favorite focal lengths back, but I don't think it's gonna happen. Most pros can apparently now work exclusively with f/2.8 lenses and get away with it, which means mostly zooms except at the extremes. Look at the olympus E-system. The lenses are digital only, and pretty fast. Of course the sensor is tiny. >Also, unrelatedly and quite OT, anyone think it's a bit odd that Sigma >hasn't got a 50 1.4 for their own cameras? Sigma's not big into primes. Honestly I suspect they never designed one because they could never sell a Sigma 50 (unless it was a macro, or f/1, or something) for any other mount because they couldn't compete with the manufacturers at that focal length. It's been argued that the biggest fault of the Sigma cameras is the Sigma mount. NOTHING else fits. Can you see Tamron or Tokina making Sigma mount lenses? Sigma could presumably make an M42-Sigma adapter, but if they didn't really want to tie you to their lenses they'd probably just have used K-mount on their own cameras. One of my acquaintances tells me that it IS basically a K-mount, but with a different backfocus distance. Who uses a 50 any more anyway? Everybody's got 28-80 zooms. If companies were selling a lot of 50s, you wouldn't see them struggling to cut costs and quality in their 50/1.8s. >I must be in some weird why why why mood, but I was also wondering what >kind of issues stop Sigma from offering it's 120-300 2.8 lens in a Pentax >mount. Pentax people probably don't buy enough expensive lenses. The chatter on this list about 3rd party lenses suggests that most people either stick with Pentax glass or buy 3rd party zooms and macros based on PRICE. People who won't spring for a good Pentax zoom are unlikely to shell out for the (relatively cheap, honestly, even if it weren't unique) Sigma 120-300. I'll bet that Sigma's other premium lenses didn't sell well in K-mount. >I was just wondering because considering that with a 2x converter >it'd be a >240-600 5.6, it would have been an affordable alternative to anyone who >wanted a FA * 250-600 5.6. Unfortunately it is very hard to get "affordable" and "good" in super tele, especially super tele zooms. The common wisdom is not to put teleconverters on zooms, and most pros don't use 2x teleconverters because the quality loss is apparently too high. The only place I see pros using 1.4x converters on zooms is on the very highly evolved 70-200 ultrapro things from Nikon and Canon. Apparently the quality loss isn't unacceptable when using these very good teleconverters with what are arguably the best lenses N and C have ever produced. Oddly, I don't think either company makes a 100-300/4 EDIF-IS zoom. Sigma, of course, makes a 100-300/4. DJE
Re: cost per mm
> The Pentax 15mm f/3.5 that I just enabled myself with was right in > the US$100/mm range. > Good stuff ain't cheap. > > William Robb Depends. A number of Pentax's good old lenses are expensive primarily because of rarity. Similar lenses in Nikon mount are more readily availible, and thus noticeably cheaper. The Nikkor 15/3.5 is a ready example. Compare also K105/2.8 (if you can find one) to the equally legendary Nikkor 105/2.5 (which is still availible new, plus readily availible used). OTOH, one of the great things about Pentax is the ability to get great lenses outside of the extreme ranges and pro specs that don't cost too much. You've got to actually try to pay more than $100 for a used 200mm lens, and good used 28s are equally cheap. With some other brands you can't get both good and cheap at once. DJE
Re: What lens do you carry
OK, I'm really late to this topic... > FA* 24 f2.0 (I would like to exchange this for a DA 20 f1.8 or 2.0.) OK, if Pentax makes such a lens I will buy it and a DSLR to fit it. If Canon makes such a lens I will buy it and a DSLR to fit it. Both seem unlikely. Nobody makes primes anymore except at the extremes of focal lengths, and 20 isn't extreme on a DSLR. Only Sigma and Olympus have made such a lens. Neither is well regarded from what I can tell. Perhaps the DA compromise would allow one to be made small, affordable, and of reasonable quality. > To further help my back, I have retired my old, standard style carrying > bag. I realized that it distributes the weight outward, which pulls on > my lower back. I now use one of the narrow but deep bags (Tamrac Pro 5), OK, my standard Pentax kit is a spotmaticII with 20/4.5, 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 105/2.8, and 200/4.0 lenses in a bag I made up from a military-surplus satchel bag. It's sort of half a Domke in size and carrying capacity. The camera and a handheld meter can tuck into the ends of the bag. My kick-around Nikon kit is the same focal lengths, but (believe it or not) the M-size versions of the lenses so it fits in one of those little "field and stream" bags that is about the size of a CD wallet. I normally wear the bag clipped around my waist. The camera (Nikkormat EL) does not fit, of course, nor does the 50mm. I'm still casting about a bit for a K-mount kit. I can muster M28/3.5, M50/2, and M135/3.5 with an ME super if I want to minimize size. I can put together K30, M50/1.4, and M150/4 (I'd rather have the K versions of both...) with a KX if I'm looking for a little more quality. Both rigs leave me feeling a little weak on the long and short ends, plus I view the 135 or 150 as a compromise and would be happier with 105 and 200 but that I can't justify either lens financially right now. If I were really serious about a K-mount kit, I'd duplicate the Nikon kit with Pentax M lenses and pack it in the same little bag--assuming I could FIND the appropriate M lenses! In all these kits, it's the 20mm end that is the weakest. SMC-T 20/4.5 isnt' great, and it's big. 20/3.5 Nikkor isn't great, but at least it's small. 20/4 M is impossible to find and more expensive than the other 20s. All the 28s, 50s, 105s, and 200s are really nice lenses--among the best primes made by Pentax and Nikon. On the job, its three zooms (17-35,35-70,70-200) and a 14, and yes it does rip my shoulder off! DJE
Re: photojournalism (was about HCB)
>Edwin wrote:
>Artistic value is not at the top of the list for photojournalism.
>Pal's REPLY:
>. However, my issue was
>that
> when artistic factors supposedly are indeed put at the forefront for
>judging
> images lasting values beyond their immediate context, then one should
>expect artistic values to be present in the imges.
Artistic factors are almost never put at the forefront for judging images
in photojournalistic contests. The judging criteria almost always put
"news value" and "human impact" up at the top and "artistic value" down
at the bottom. Immediate context (i.e. newsworthyness) is usually
very important in judging.
Years later, however, when the context is forgotten or dimmed in the
memory, the photo-J shots which still hold up are the ones which either
have great universal human connection ("migrant mother" or "the critic")
or are high in artistic value. Once their news value "expires" they
only communicate in universals. Since they are usually shot for the
moment and not for the ages, many of them do indeed come off poorly
down the road. Magazine photography is in my experience often stronger
here because it tends to go a bit more in depth and capture more insights
on the human condition than newspaper photography which often captures
only the news. Good photographers can manage both.
>My issue is the pretentiosness of much of this type of photography,
>not to bash the whole field and their masters.
The field gets very little respect, which may have something to do with
it. Certainly there are very few photojournalists who realistically are
producing work that can be evaluated meaningfully in the same context as
many other forms of art. I'd suggest Sebastio Salgado, but I'd also
suggest that he is very arty for a journalist, and most of us couldn't get
away with shooting like that on the job!
>The difference between this and a picture of a butterfly or a sunset
> is that they don't pretend to be something else.
A fair argument. It might also explain why "serious" photographers so
often brush off photos which are simply beautiful, such as butterflies
and sunsets.
Personally, I shoot truth for a living and beauty for fun.
DJE
photojournalism (was about HCB)
Pal said: >The problem I have with photo journalism is that a larger percentage of >it sucks more than any other kind of photography I can think of. This is a question of perspective. Speaking as a photojournalist I'd say that a larger percentage of wedding photography sucks because it all looks the same. The same might be said for product photography. Most nature photography sucks because it doesn't have people in it, just rocks and trees. How interesting is that Ansel Adams guy anyway since everything he did was in black and white? You get my point. >If you look at many of > the price winning photograph in photojournalism the only merrit seem to >be > showing something terrible with no other artistic values. Artistic value is not at the top of the list for photojournalism. By the standards of photojournalism a perfectly composed and exposed photograph of my sister's 3rd birthday is not as good as a grainy, blurry photo of the assassination of JFK. Mind you, this is frustrating to those of us who are in the profession. It's not that composition and other "artistic" features are not valued, its simply that news value is more important. If you happen to be on a small-time beat, you rarely get prizewinning photos because nothing particularly newsworthy happens no matter how good you might be as a photographer. A lot of day-in day-out photojournalism is actually better "artistically" than the big-time prizewinners, since it shows what the photographers can actually do with their craft when they don't have to get the big-news shot. Guys get paid for consistently bringing back the big news, though. It's not nearly as easy as it might seem. Most "great" photographers would not fare well photographically or physically if dropped into the situations that photojournalists often wind up in. Often getting any shot at all is an accomplishment, and that explains why some technically mediocre photographs are deemed important. A lot of the "craft" portion of photojournalism is also pretty subtle, and often overlooked by the reader. This is sometimes the intent. I HAVE noted that styles of photojournalism differ among cultures, countries, and venues. Some DO seem to go in more for the shocking disasters. The work I have seen from the modern American greats (Carol Guzy, James Nachtwey, Tim McCurry) shows significantly more depth and craft. Its also worth noting that photojournalists have less control over the circumstances of their photography than almost any other kind of photographer. This does not help the technical or artistic merits of photojournalism at all. This is in some portion deliberate, as having control over the subject and circumstances tends to erode the credibility of the photographer as a reporter of the unadulterated truth. >Also, the proponents of the related field of "street photography" >(whatever that is) are often full of pretense as if their style of >photography >is inherently a kind of art form that is somehow above anything else. >In my opinion, the oposite is closer to the truth, something thats >indicated with the equipment fetishism connected to it. I must admit I've never understood "street photography". It is in some ways, as I understand it, almost the antithesis of photojournalism. I've never tried it, though, so I can't really say much about it. DJE
Re: first question
>should
>be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem
>to
>find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There
>are
>a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things?
The normal "portrait lens" range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for
some sorts of portraits. The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce a
little bit of "wide angle distortion" of features compared to what we are
used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 "compresses" the
relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or attractive
to most people. For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard
portrait lens, rather than 100. Much longer than 105mm and you start to
get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally "compressed" in the
facial features.
If you are actually looking for a telephoto lens rather than a "portrait"
lens, I might recommend a 200mm instead. They are cheap and plentiful.
Pentax made a couple of 85s, all of which are a bit spendy and hard to
find, to wit:
85mm f/1.8 SMC ("K") which is very rare and sought after, thus expensive
and hard to find.
85mm f/1.4 A* and 85mm f/1.4 FA*, both very nice lenses but WAY too
expensive to cut your teeth on.
85mm f/2.0 M, which is small, light, and somewhat affordable. It has a
mediocre reputation, primarily due to a bit of softness at large
apertures. Depending on what your portrait preferences are, this may not
be an issue. This is the lens you are most likely to find on the market.
Pentax made a couple of 100/105s, all good, and also relatively expensive
and hard to find.
100mm f/2.8 M, which seems to go for about $175 in used camera shops and
has a good reputation.
105mm f/2.8 SMC ("K"), which is rare and sought after. I have not seen
one of these on the used market in a while.
100mm f/2.8 and f/4 macros, which have a good reputation but macros are
likely to be larger and more expensive than would be ideal for portrait
work, and by definition a macro lens is optimized to be equally sharp
across the field in one flat plane (so you can photograph stamps and the
like) which may well mean that theya are less well optimized for
portraiture of 3D objects at longer ranges.
Pentax made a couple of 120mm lenses, but I have never seen one on the
used market. I think they were designed for portraiture.
Given that the 135/3.5 M lens is cheap, good, and readily availible, it
might be a good alternative to finding or paying for one of the above.
Two 135s to avoid would be the 135/2.8 A and the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5,
which have poor reputations. They might serve, but you can do better for not
much extra money.
>As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or
>is 28mm just as good?
As a novice, I'd steer you aggressively towards the 28. Optically, 28s
are better than 24s almost uniformly, plus they are substantially cheaper
and easier to find. I'd recommend the 28/3.5 M as the best choice for
"good and cheap". I find 24mm to be a bit of a challenge compositionally
because of the wide angle of view. You have to get very close to make
smaller subjects fill the frame, and perspective distortion is very easy
to achieve whether you want it or not. I have always had a 24mm or 20mm
lens in my bag, but I find the 28mm is still my standard wide-angle.
Mind you, 24 IS noticeably wider. Often, this is not a good thing until
and unless you know what to do with it.
DJE
Re: OT - File loss & recovery
> > Frank, > > I just had a hard drive accident while on a boat trip on Lake > Michigan . . . long story short, an entire days worth of shots > (approximately 230) were lost from the hard drive, and I had already > formated the 2 cards I had used to take these shots. I shot some > pictures onto each of these cards before discovering the loss. After > worrying for a few days, I finally arrived home, downloaded one of the > pieces of software that lets you 'undelete' and found about 75% of my > pictures remained on the cards (because I stopped shooting on them as > soon as I discovered the loss). > > My summary: I believe that the card just clears the FAT and resets > the two directories that it needs. This is they way most computer devices "delete" or "format" things--they just mark the space as unused, without actually removing anything except the metadata that describes what was stored where. That is why to safely delete credit card information or that sort of thing you need a program that deliberately overwrites garbage on top of the data you wish to destroy. I have had twice to use recovery software to reclaim pictures shot with a Nikon D1H (due to a piece of, IMHO, utter stupidity in MacOS' handling of hot-swappable devices--not any fault of the camera) and found that usually something over 90% are recoverable providing that new pictures have not been written over them. Flash cards apparently have some sort of load balancing at some firmware or software level which probably helps new pictures not overwrite old pictures until they have to. Data on hard drive is usually salvageable, but rarely is it worth the cost to undertake professional data recovery. DJE
Re: Vivitar 19/3.8
> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:06:25 +0200 > From: "Thibouille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Vivitar 19mm/3.8 > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Any info about this one? I couldn't find much about it. > > Thibouille I've read some reviews, which suggest that it is not as good as the manufacturers' $350-400 lenses but not bad. Faults mentioned are some odd distortion (probably "moustasche") at the edges and an apparently high-for-its-class tendency to flare due to coating or optical design. Theoretically, I should HAVE one of these things, as I ordered a used one from Adorama. The rest of my order showed up, but the lens was "back ordered". I have to call tomorrow and figure out how a used item is "back ordered". Assuming Adorama isn't jerking me around, I will relatively soon have one to evaluate. One thing worth mentioning is that apparently the K-mount version is no longer being made, which suggests that if you have a line on one you can't wait forever. I don't see them very often on the used market. New they should be just over $100. There aren't a lot of good choices in K-mount for 20mm lenses, especially if you don't want to pay for a new FA 20/2.8 (assuming you can find one in stock somewhere...). The K and M 20/4s are impossible to find, and very few off-brands came in 19,20,or 21. I'm hoping the Adorama order comes through, and the lens doesn't stink, because I'm beginning to despair of finding any of the good Pentax glass on the used market any more. There was some discussion of this lens a little while back, probably my fault. Somebody, I forget who, suggested that I might not be satisfied with it. I figured that for $50 I'd try it, but it wasn't a ringing endorsement. DJE
Re: why I haven't switched to canon
OK, I'm gonna play devil's advocate with Jens' post here. Obviously, I'm not anti-Pentax, since I own a hell of a lot of Pentax stuff. I'm not pro-Canon either. People should know by now that my other system is not Canon but Nikon. I'll buy Canon gear under only two conditions: 1) my employer hands me a Canon DSLR instead of a Nikon one 2) Canon produces a better-looking and/or better-working cheap DSLR that takes M42-mount lenses than Pentax (Nikon's not an option here) > My answer is simple. I don't want to. For many reasons. > Pentax make brilliant user interfaces. My experience with Canon (all second hand) is that they are very good at the top of the line, and very competitive at the bottom, but weak in the middle. Pentax is arguably a better advanced amateur system both in cameras and lenses. Pentax is more "traditional" in some desirable ways. In general, I'd agree that Pentax UI is good. Some of that is that they stayed with the classic UI better than many. Give me a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring and I can run almost any camera. > Good backwards compatibility (could be even better) - excellent old lenses > may cost less than a new consumer lens. Backwards compatability IS a strong suit. With an M42-K adapter you can use lenses from as far back as 1957, which is as good as any brand gets (although Nikon F-mount is close). Alas, NOBODY has kept complete backwards compatability. Both Nikon and Pentax have modern cameras which won't talk to older lenses (although they will mount, and work). > K-mount lenses are very easy to get, and not expensive. (I have a nice > M*300mm, that cost me 700 USD. A new 300mm Pentax pro lens would drain my > budget by 12000 USD (list price). But I still have both options. I find that good Pentax equipment is harder to find on the used market than Nikon or Canon, and often more expensive. Many of the legendary K and A lenses are almost impossible to find. Granted, for basic "M" primes and zooms there are plenty to be had cheaply. I'm still looking for an M20/4 and a K105/2.8 whereas I find Nikon 20/3.5 and 105/2.5s everywhere I turn. > Pentax cameras are very reliable. When ever one of mine broke, it was my own > fault (with only one exception in 23 years). This depends on what camera and how you use it, I suspect. I switched to Nikon because I decided that pentax cameras were NOT reliable or easy to get fixed given what I was using and how--I've had an MX, a K2, an SF-1, and 2 super programs fail on me and been told that they were irreparable, plus my ME supers were always in the shop for some fault or other. I'm now using different Pentax cameras and using them differently, and have not had problems. > I have a huge number of lenses available. A 20 year old 100 USD Pentax lens > can produce perfectly sharp photographs used with a state of the art digital > body. Are Canon offering this? A state of the art digital body? Yes. Is Pentax? (yes, I know this isn't quite what you meant...) >From what I've heard, some folks would argue that the *istD does not produce "perfectly sharp photographs" with many lenses. Canon has the largest array of lenses in current production, many of which are inexpensive. I suspect you can fit pre-AF canon lenses to an EOS with an adapter, although it's certainly not the last word in convenience. Canon also offers a lot of lens options Pentax doesn't and never did, especially at the high end. DJE
Re: Tak WA hood question
> Does anyone know if there was a square metal clamp type hood (like the one for > the Takumar 1:3.5 28mm) made to suite 35/28/24mm lenses that would fit on a > 54mm OD lens barrel (52mm filter ring)? I don't know of one, unless there was one for the 30/2.9 which was one of the few 52mm filter-mount lenses. If a round hood will do you could look at used Nikon lens hoods. Most of their lenses took 52mm filters and they made nice metal round hoods. DJE
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 #878
> From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If you could persuade Kodak to make one - they did for Nikon and Canon > mounts. But then again, they are 5000 USD +. Who'd pay that much for a FF > camera? Not me, anyway. Looked at the cost of the smaller-sensored EOS-1D2 or the Nikon D1X? Not much change from $5000. With current technology, $5000 for a FF DSLR that actually worked would be a bargain. > what I want is FF DSLR, 10 Mpixel, Focusing Screen, and full K-mount > support. I don't think it will be that far off. Assuming pentax survives, probably one or two more generations. I don't see baby-D being bigger than 6MP. Unless Canon actually does what is rumored and puts out a 10D replacement at 8MP, there isn't ANY move towards higher sensor resolution for the cheap DSLRs right now. Both Nikon and Canon have hinted at it, but the sensors have not been forthcoming. Rumor suggests that while small sensors are cheaper most of the companies have been having trouble increasing density while maintaining image quality and that will eventually push them to larger sensor sizes (i.e. FF) despite the cost. Really, if either Canon or Nikon put a FF sensor in their standard pro DSLR they could sell enough of them to keep the cost down. > In the long run I would love a FF M42 DSLR. I do not think it > is out of the question either once the DSLR market gets more > mature. It would have to "push the pin" for auto-aperture M42 > lenses though or it would make no sense over a K body with > an adapter. > > JCO Yeah, I'd buy such a thing too. OTOH I'd never expect to see one, unless somebody besides Leica makes a digital back that works that could be adapted to the Cosina things. Those few of us that would actually use M42 lenses on digital can handle using a K-mount DSLR with an adapter and using the A/M lever like an auto-takumar or preset takumar lens! DJE
PUG
I've got an entry for PUG all ready to go, but it occurred to me that I'd heard some mumblings about changes in where PUG lives and such. What's the e-mail address to send a PUG entry to? (I can't use the autopug site) DJE
Re: Junkers (2nd try)
OK, I've got takers for the winders and the MX. The K2 is the only other thing on my list that I really expect anybody to have interest in, but you never know... DJE
Re: Film vs Digita
> On 19/7/04, graywolf, discombobulated, offered: > > >Here is a bit of a poll: How many of the folks on this list who have > >been into photography as a serious hobby for 5-10 or more years, and > >for whom it still is a serious hobby have 100% abandoned film? OK, I've been a serious photographer since 1985 and a professional since 1993. I'd still consider myself a serious hobbyist when I'm off duty, although I probably shoot less personal stuff than most of you all. I currently shoot digital when I am shooting high volume or high speed work (action, studio work with models, etc) and when I am shooting casually (take a camera to the party, etc). Both are places I used to shoot B&W for cost and convenience reasons, even if I'd have preferred color. Digital gives me a greater cost advantage in high-volume, low-success-ratio situations, plus it's color. Now that I've lost my darkroom (the paper is all digital, and no regrets there) B&W is a lot less convenient and more expensive. BUT, I haven't abandoned film 100%. I still shoot film when I am shooting slowly and deliberately. I use film for lens testing, and for bumming around stuff where I don't want the bulk or risk of a DSLR kit. Obviously I still shoot film in my nifty film cameras, of which I have far too many. The Spotmatic F, KX, and Nikkormat EL have a charm and feel that the latest Canon and Nikon DSLRs just don't. I'm shooting mostly 50 and 100 speed film, B&W or fujichrome, plus the occasional roll of TMY 400 for casual work (I've got dozens left over from when the paper shot film). I'd consider medium format, but I have no way of appreciating the quality of a bigger negative (no darkroom, no MF scanner, no MF projector, etc). Given the way I'm now working with film, MF seems otherwise to make sense. > (cotty?) >I don't miss film, I don't miss my darkroom...the only thing I miss is my >FA 85/1.4 I do miss printing B&W film. I don't print much of my work in any medium right now because it's so much cheaper to enjoy on the computer. I don't miss shooting or scanning color negative film. I HATED color negative film. I miss my Nikon F5, which I still own but have virtually no use for. I miss my fast wides and ultrawides, which digital crops into uselessness and screwmount doesn't have at all. I miss my 85 and 105, too. Nobody has yet made a fast 58,60,or 70mm especially for DSLRs. Given my collection of fine 85s and 105s, I'll be shooting certain kinds of work on film for a while yet! DJE
'57 strat
As I search unsuccessfully for some used K-mount gear I find myself wondering if there's a market for "vintage re-issue" lenses, the way Fender Guitars put out "1957" and "1962" replica models when they discovered that everybody preferred older guitars to the current models. Presumably Japan is being swept by nostalgia, with Cosina putting out cameras and lenses in leica screw, M42, and K-mount, and Nikon putting out the FM3a and a retro 45mm lens to go with it. Leica put out a re-issue of the original pre-M model recently. So, why does not Pentax put out some of the legendary and impossible-to-find K-series designs again? They could either update them with AF and A connections and make them to the standard of the FA limiteds so you could use them with the *istD and such, or simply re-issue them in original K-style. Pentax really hasn't made anything like the K18 since then, and the K15, K85/1.8, K105/2.8, and K135/2.5 are very hard to come by even though there were passable replacements put out in the M and later eras. You could argue that nobody uses primes any more, and that there is no market for Pentax premium lenses, but if this were true you'd think that you could find the originals cheap... DJE
Re: New Pentax body from Cosina
> > Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:52:46 -0400 > From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Pentax body from Cosina > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On 16/7/04, John Mustarde, discombobulated, offered: > > > >>Actually, the best bargain in a film camera would be a used PZ1p for > >>around $300 - 400. Interestingly, this is one of the few Pentax cameras selling at this price. LXen are normally $400-600, and the best of the old old stuff is $200-300. From what I've seen a $400 killer camera is a good thing to have in today's market. > >Crikey, are people still spending this much on a film camera? > > I'm now working part-time at a camera store and I can tell you the > answer to that question is no. That's clearly not entirely true. The best you can argue from experience is "people don't spend $300-400 on a film camera in the camera store I work at". Mail order houses still stock more expensive film cameras (which are now niche market items more than they ever were). Used places still stock cameras for much more than $300-400, and presumably this is because there is still a market for them. If KEH couldn't sell them, you wouldn't think they'd buy them. Nikon apparently still sells a number of N80s, which are about $400. Of course Nikon and Canon are tripping over themselves to produce a slew of $200-250 film cameras, so clearly either most of the market is there or most of the profit is there. What's really falling out of use of course are the $2000 pro SLRs, because most pros are using digital now. $1000 semi-pro SLRs are probably suffering too because for $1000 you can buy a bottom-of-the-line digital (and get much less camera...) or a used top-of-the-line model. One problem the new camera market presumably has is that as pros and advanced amateurs have dumped their stuff for digital, the used market is flooded with great products at low prices. It's gotta be hard to sell a "modern K1000" because you couldn't produce it cheaply enough to compete with the used K1000s on the market. DJE
tentative M42 lens dates
OK, I sat down with the "The Ultimate Asahi Pentax Screwmount Guide" and the serial number data from m-fortytwo.info and hashed out some serial number/date correspondances. The method used was this: determine the year of introduction of a lens, determine the lowest attested serial number for this lens, assume that that the serial numbers had progressed to said number by said year. This assumes the following: 1) serial numbers are unique. As I understand it, there is no evidence that this in not true. 2) while Asahi may have produced lenses in batches, serial numbers were in general used sequentially. 3) Gerjan's dates of introduction are correct. 4) m-fortytwo.info's serial numbers are correct. Most of them are Gerjan's! I expect some errors exist in the database either from typographical errors or misidentification of exact lens models. 5) the lens serial numbers are original, not changed by replacement of parts for repair or deliberate forgery. Note that this doesn't say anything about dates of sale. Stuff could have sat around a while in some dark corner before actually entering the market or the field. serial # 546014 was in use by 1958 (interpolation puts serial # 60 in use by 1961) serial # 677842 was in use by 1963 serial # 732001 was in use by 1965 serial # 2241359 was in use by 1967 (big jump!) serial # 3435021 was in use by 1968 serial # 4188173 was in use by 1971 serial # 4635057 was in use by 1972 (interpolation puts serial # 550 in use by 1973) serial # 6872336 was in use by 1974 serial # 7370589 was in use by 1974 I suspect that slightly lower numbers were in fact in use by any given year, given that it seems unlikely that the several thousand entries in the database have captured the first production batch of every lens when over 7 million lenses were made. Also, I'd expect Japanese availibility of many of the lenses to be a little earlier than for Europe/America, and I assume fewer of the Japanese-market lenses made it into the database. My underlying interest in the whole chronology thing is that I was born in January of 1969. I was sure that I had a couple of lenses with serial numbers around the 1,000,000 mark that were older than I am because the lenses were discontinued before 1969. In fact it appears that serial number 1,000,000 was probably issued in 1965 or 1966. It looks very likely that any lens with a serial number less than 3,500,000 is older than I am--this includes almost all my Takumars and Super Takumars, pretty much my entire pre-SMC kit! DJE
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 #768
> > Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:34:20 +0200 > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michel_Carr=E8re-G=E9e?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: takumar lens dates? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > >Has anyone attempted to work out the correlation between when an M42 > >takumar lens was produced and its serial number? > > > >A > > > Yes, Gerjan von Oosten in "The Ultimate Asahi Pentax Scew Mount Guide" Unfortunately, no. I've got the book. He has dates of production, and does attempt to correlate dates of CAMERAS with serial numbers, but not dates of LENSES. Even the camera info is sketchy. He's got nothing on serial number ranges of lenses other than the approximate date of the switchover to SMC, probably because the info was not availible. Actually, I have a super-takumar 24/3.5 that has a serial number that SHOULD be SMC by his reckoning, and from what I can tell has neither cam nor coating. I think mfortytwo.info is actually an attempt to prove Gerjan's theory that the lenses were made in batches with consecutive serial numbers. My question is--given a lens with serial number xxx, when was it made? Given Gerjan's dates of production, and the mfortytwo.info database of serial numbers, it ought to be possible to work out a rough correspondance. I'll do it if it hasn't been done already. DJE
takumar lens dates?
Has anyone attempted to work out the correlation between when an M42 takumar lens was produced and its serial number? As I understand it, the mfortytwo.info site is attempting to collect serial numbers to test the theory that lenses were made in batches with consecutive serial numbers, which implies the obvious assumption that the serial numbers are assigned in roughly chronological order. Especially for the earlier lenses which were often only in production for a couple of years, it ought to be possible to line up serial numbers with dates within a year or two. I'm thinking about slurping down the mfortytwo.info database and doing it, but before I do I want to make sure that nobody has already done it. DJE
Re: SF1n Opinions
> From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Here are my first impressions, please let me know if you SF owners agree: > > 1.) It's HEAVY (Has the AA battery grip) > 2.) It appears to be very sturdy and well built, other than the flash and > top cover. > 3.) It's BIG. > 4.) Autofocus is noisey enough to wake the dead. > 5.) It's HEAVY. > 6.) It seems to have a nice well rounded feature set except for MLU and DOF > preview. > 7.) Seems to be very close to spot focus and though slower focusing than > I'm used to seems to do fairly well with a good lens. > 8.) Though different than what I'm used to the controls seem well placed and > easily reached. > 9.) By the sound and feel of it, it seems that it would be reliable as a > sledge hammer. > 10.) Heck it could be USED as a sledge hammer! (Have I mentioned that it's > HEAVY?) > > Whatcha' Think? > > Don I owned an SF-1 (original) once. My next camera was a Nikon, which IS a comment on the SF-1 and the statement it made about Pentax's ambitions in cameras. Yes, it was heavier than, say, an A-series camera, but it did have a built-in autowinder. Consider it against Super Program with Winder MEII, or LX with winder, and it's not so big and heavy. In absolute terms, it is not a HEAVY camera. I replaced mine with an F3, which is fairly heavy, and an F4, which is about as big and heavy as 35mm gets. OTOH the roughly contemporary Nikon N2020 might have been smaller, which is a little unusual in the normal Nikon/Pentax scheme of things. I wouldn't use it as a sledgehammer, either. Mine was a low-mileage hand-me-down from my grandfather, and it was nothing but trouble mechanically. Eventually I sold it to my repair shop for $15 to use as a parts camera because I was tired of bringing it to them for work. Maybe the -N version was better here than my original SF-1... AF was indeed noisy and slow (probably not aided by the first generation F lenses I had) but probably no worse than anything else of its day. My experiences with SF-1 AF kept me from seriously considering AF until almost 10 years later, by which point it had gotten a LOT better. Functionally, it wasn't at all bad. Unfortunately, most of the cameras of that era had some user interface issues as manufacturers wrestled with the best way to deliver new functions, and the SF-1 suffered from this a bit--I found the older cameras a little easier to run. Perhaps the worst feature of the SF cameras and F lenses was their appearance. Perhaps the shape was functional, but the color? DJE
Re: off-brand lenses they didn't make
>> Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the Vivitar 19mm f/3.8 >> I bought this lens brand new from B&H a few years ago. It's still >>listed on >> their website. They're asking a little over $100 for it. >Unfortunately I don't think DJE would be too impressed with the optical >performance of this lens. >Rob Studdert Considering that Nikon, Pentax, and Canon all want most of $500 for their 20/2.8s, I WOULD be leery of any $100 20mm lens. Given the faults in the older 20s from major manufacturers that I've experienced 20s seem to be hard to do well. Photographyreview.com's collection of reviews suggests that it is actually pretty good and well worth $100, but weaker in the corners than would be nice (big surprise...) None of the big names seem to make a 20/4.0 any more, probably because 20mm is basically a pro or advanced amateur focal length and those guys want and will pay for an f/2.8 lens. Presumably the landscape and hiking photographers are using older gear (the AIS Nikkor 20/4 is very popular for this as I understand it) or are using something else entirely. B&H is in fact listing the vivitar lens, at $105, in PK mount. It's out of stock, and Vivitar's own website does not list the lens. Focus camera claims that it is no longer availible in PK mount. What I'm really looking for may be two different, and possibly unachieveable lenses. I want a small 20 to mount on my KX and take on vacation, and I want a better, brighter 20 to replace the SMC-T 20/4.5 on my spotmatics. The answer to the first problem would appear to be the M20/4. The answer to the second problem, if there is one, might be a Fujinon, a Flektogon, a Mamiya, something Russian, or possibly even one of those samyang/vivitar 19/3.8 kinda things in M42 mount. Given a good enough M42 lens, it could also serve my K-mount needs. I'm not seeing many of any of these items in the places I look for used equipment. I may have to admit that back in the day of M42, nobody made a good 20mm lens and the SMC-T is as good as I'm going to get. I may have to eventually break down and buy the FA 20/2.8 which is more than I'd like to spend. DJE
e-bay
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 20mm lenses pop up pretty regularly on eBay. I don't understand your distrust > for eBay, it's only a advertising forum it can only claim to represent what is > posted on it truthfully. The transaction is with the seller ultimately and > generally it's pretty easy to determine if they are likely to do the right > thing or not. I've had more bad experience buying site unseen from second hand > dealers on the web and individuals on NGs than buy via eBay traders. > > So what I'm saying is don't complain that they aren't about because they are > you just have to be prepared to go where they are and use your common sense. Well, OK, it's not "e-bay" itself that I trust (it is, as you say, just the medium) but the general idea of buying something sight unseen from an individual who is hard to hold accountable. I prefer to either buy stuff that I can touch, or to buy from large, reputable dealers who are easier to hold accountable and can't risk playing games. Unfortunately, I realize that oddball, low-volume or low-markup items are much more likely to find a home on E-bay than at B&H or KEH. DJE
Re: off-brand lenses they didn't make
> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:04:05 -0400 > From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: off-brand lenses they didn't make > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Wider than 28mm there's the 24/2.8 from (Kiron?) Vivitar > and the 24/2.5 from Tamron. But not much else. > Pentax has a strange history of focal lengths. > 15mm > 20mm > 30mm > 40mm > 50mm > 85mm > 120mm > 150mm > 200mm Boy, that 85 sticks out like a sore thumb, doesn't it! I wonder if the 77ltd was aiming at 80mm but ended up 77. I'll bet the 31 was essentially aiming at 30 or 28. Leica made an 80 IIRC, so it's not unheard of. I must admit, I've almost bought a 24/2.5 Tamron several times. I would have except 24s are a bit pricey, and I don't use that focal length much. I might eventually get one of the 28s from Tamron, while there are still M42 adaptall mounts availible. But what I really want is a 20, damnit! DJE
RE: First scm-DA14/2.8 impressions
>Say these are correct. How do Canon & Nikon deal with it? Do they have >more effective solution? >Alan Chan 1) Throw more ED and other special glass at it, upping the price of the lens. 2) Optimize to limit CA at the expense of other optical flaws. 3) Supposedly the 14/2.8 Nikkor has problems on the D1X, which could mean that they DON'T have the CA tamed. Nikon has apparently been good at reducing CA in its designs in recent years, possibly because pros complain about it, or possibly because Nikon starting discovering that digital doesn't like CA really early. The 17-35 is apparently a LOT better in this respect than the 20-35 that it replaced. OTOH Nikon designs are not known for their bokeh, low price, or small size. I've got a $500 used Sigma 14/3.5 because I couldn't scrape together $1300 for a new Nikkor 14/2.8. Based on what I get, and what my co-worker who had $1300 to spend gets, it's worth the extra money. DJE
Re: 20mm filters
> > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 11:03:37 +1000 > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 20mm filters > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Content-description: Mail message body > > On 26 Jun 2004 at 23:36, John L wrote: > > > Once again I have a question for the group. I just bought a FA 20mm f2.8, am I > > going to be able to get by with regular filters or is it necessary to use thin > > ring filters? I'm especially concerned about the polarizer. Today was the > > first day I've shot with the lens and only did about 1/2 a roll, so just > > wondering if I need to make plans for a few $ and filters. > > > With the sun at an reasonable angle to the lens it's been pretty good. On a > > general note, any recommendations on lens hoods? Are the Pentax recommend > > worthwhile? Or has someone found something better. > I've had some very mild vignetting with the SMC Takumar 20mm and a not-excessively-thick el cheepo UV filter. I've had no trouble using the same brand of filters on Nikkor lenses, but they normally are a little larger in filter size for a given focal/aperture lens and that may be why they don't vignette. I've got an ultra-thin on my 18mm Nikkor because I was told I'd need it. I WOULD worry about a polarizer, because they are normally thicker. DJE
F* 300/4.5 impressions
I'm intrigued that people seem to like the FA 300/4.5 clutch mechanism and focus feel better, since the F 300/4.5 seems pretty nice to me in those respects. My girlfriend and I went down to the local pond to photograph the baby ducks tonight. She had her *istD and the F* 300/4.5 that I acquired recently for her, and I had my D100 and 300/4.5 EDIF Nikkor. It's hard to compare sharpness between setups since although the two cameras have identical sensors, they clearly produce different results from them. Also I was manual focusing, which on the D100 is unpleasant in funny light with a slowish lens, whereas she was AFing most of the time. Some things were obvious, though. 1) Both lenses show color fringing, which is to be expected with an IF design as I understand it 2) The bokeh of the two lenses appears to be different in character. I'm not a bokeh afficianado, but I can see a difference even if I can't describe it. 3) The F* lens handled backlight MUCH better than the Nikkor. It didn't have a filter on it (haven't gotten around to buying one) whereas the Nikkor had a fairly clean Hoya UV on the front, but I suspect that the difference is primarily in the coatings and perhaps the optics themselves. The Pentax built-in hood also appears to be a little longer, which would have helped combat the low-sun backlight. 4) 300mm is too short for ducks, even on an APS-size-sensor DSLR. Overall, I'm impressed with the F* 300/4.5. I'm still hoping to set up the studio lights and take some portraits with the various 300s now that my more scientific test target is no more. DJE
Re: *istD low-battery wierdness
I note with my NiMh-powered Nikon D1h that if the battery indicator reads half-full and I turn the camera off and on again it often reads full. I doubt any appreciable charge is added to the battery by doing this. With the D1H, however, having the camera in "full battery" mode keeps it from shutting all the displays off the second your finger leaves the shutter button, so the illusory full battery indication is worth something. It probably accounts for the fact that a D1h can go from half-full to dead battery in a heartbeat if it's been turned on and off a lot. So, I might suggest that your *istD is doing the same thing--the battery is actually very low but the battery level indicator isn't correctly reflecting that fact. DJE
85s
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:05:28 +0200 From: Antonio Aparicio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT A*85mm for $1,000 (was MX for nearly $400) Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Incidentally, anyone know how the Pentax 85mm 1.4's compare to their Nikon counterparts? I love my Pentax film bodies but you've gotta admit that so far their digital offering is a bit light on the ground. I don't have my A* any longer, and have never messed with the FA*. I do have the 85/1.4 AIS and 85/1.4 AF-D nikkors. I almost never used the 85/1.4 A* at an aperture smaller than f/2. Wide open, I recall it being quite sharp. IIRC it is sharper and contrastier at f/1.4 and f/2 than the 85/1.4 AIS Nikkor. The AF-D Nikkor is better than the AIS Nikkor at wide stops, but inferior at middling stops. IIRC the 85/1.4 A* is about on par with the AF-D Nikkor at wide stops. The AF-D Nikkor is also about $1000 new. By reputation, the 85/1.4 FA* is not a sharp at wide stops, but apparently better for portraits in some way. > Mind you, perhaps this is the way old kit prices are gonna go over the > next few decades. Nice investments. for A* glass, yes. I paid $1000-ish for my Nikkor AIS 85/1.4, and I'd be lucky to sell it for $600 now because the used market is flooded with MF nikon gear. Most Pentax M lenses are similarly dime-a-dozen now, although the As and Fs are not. DJE
on *istD unsharpness
I have an interesting experience to relate to Dario and others complaining that their *istDs are producing unsharp pictures. For the last several weeks, I've been shooting the company's Nikon D100 because one of the D1Hs is in the shop. I've got my own D100 that I've been using for studio work for more than a year, but this is the first time I've used the company camera. At edit time, I was noticing that all of the pictures from the company D100 were a little soft and required a noticeable unsharp masking in photoshop to get to the level of crispness I was used to. All of these pictures were taken with some of Nikon's best lenses (20/2.8, 180/2.8N, 300/2.8AFS, 70-200VR) which have been exemplary performers on film. I asked one of my co-workers who had also made use of the D100 if he had had the same experience, and he said that he had. Then, killing time between assignments yesterday, I went through the menus to see how everything was set up. In-camera sharpening was set OFF. I have always had the in-camera sharpening on my D1H and D100 set to "NORMAL" (except for work at 3200 ISO). The difference is noticeable The D100 has the same sensor as the *istD. The pictures coming out of the sensor/anti-aliasing filter/firmware combo on the D100 are little soft without sharpening applied. With the same sensor and more anti-aliasing or less firmware sharpening, it makes sense that the *istD images are likewise a little soft. I'd suggest that perhaps 6MP cameras are inherantly less sharp than 3MP ones, but I haven't heard a lot of griping about the Canon 10D producing soft images (Cotty?). OTOH according to the tests I've seen Canon clearly uses less anti-aliasing or more sharpening and as a result shows more artifacting and such. I haven't messed around enough with the *istD (except with a soft-focus filter!) to learn if the images it produces can be sharpened up in photoshop to look as sharp as the ones the D100 produces. Buying a tamron adaptall 90 macro for cross-camera testing is tempting. I HAVE messed around with the *istD enough to be impressed with the AF speed, in af-s anyway, of the F* 300/4.5 on it. DJE
Re: Nikon to abandon film...
> From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Graywolf forwarded this message to the list:
>
> "Tom Reese, like many on the list, just don't understand BUSINESS.
>
> He says the Nikon F5 is too good a camera and has too loyal a following to
> drop it from the lineup in the foreseeable future. He suggests in making
> that statement that Nikon should keep making something that is not selling,
> just to make people feel good. Go into your neighborhood camera store
> (where an F5 is stocked) and ask when they last sold one. The folks behind
> the counter will look at each other, scratch their heads and probably say
> that they don't remember when they last sold one. Nikon doesn't have the
> money to keep making things which are not selling."
>
> I understand business very well. You make products that people want to buy.
> I also understand that Nikon has a relatively large customer base of
> professional photographers who use the F5.
Just out of curiousity, in what genre of professional photography?
I haven't seen an F5 in the field in over a year. Most areas of
photography that require better than 11-14MP require medium format.
> I don't think Nikon ever sold
> vast numbers of the F5 model. It is still important to them as proof that
> they make the best (yes I know this is debatable but it is marketing)
Canon still sells EOS1Vs, I think, so Nikon will presumably keep selling
F5s. Last I looked you could still get new F3s! Quite possibly the
production line has stopped and they are building from parts.
> cameras. There are still segments of the professional market that are
> predominantly film based. John Shaw is still shooting 90% film (as of a few
> weeks ago in a seminar I attended). I do not believe that Nikon will drop
> the F5 from their lineup until they have a replacement for it.
Other than the AF system, though, and battery consumption, there is very
little on the F5 that needs improvement. It's at least as good as anyone
else's top-of-the-line film camera. It's strongest competitor in many
ways is Nikon's own F100.
>I could be
> wrong but I can't see them abandoning it even if they aren't selling very
> many of them. I believe that it is too important to their marketing
> department ("more pros use Nikon equipment than any other brand") for one
> thing.
I doubt this is still true. "Now, it's Canon".
Of course I'm still convinced that Pentax retains the big FA* lenses for
more of less the same reason. I've never seen one in the wild, and only
once or twice heard of anyone who uses one. I get the impression that
most of them are built to order, as some of Nikon's oddballs used to be.
> I also believe that slide film provides something that digital does not and
> can't because of the nature of the medium. I believe that slide film will be
> around after print film disappears. I believe that digital is better if you
> want prints but there is no digital replacement for transparencies if that
> is what you want. I could be wrong about slide film demands too.
You can, or at least could, burn digital images to slide film
(expensively, at a service bureau). Digital manipulation artists
apparently do this a lot.
While I prefer slide film myself, I'm not sure what it offers in practice
to most people except perhaps the ability to bore their friends in
darkened rooms.
DJE
Re: OT: Launch of my New Website
> > Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:10:57 -0700 (PDT) > From: Cliff Nietvelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: Launch of my New Website > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Yes I have considered it. > > I have steered away from 600's in general because they > are heavy and big, and can not be used with a Wimberly > side-kick. You can with a 500mm though. Though i am > very fit and a built guy, I get tired just thinking > hauling a 600mm f4 in the Rockies or Tetons. > > My leaning right now is for the Canon EF 400mm F4 DO. > If Pentax made a 400mm f4 I would be on it like a > cheap suit. > > Trust me I have thought of almost every camera brand & > lens combos combo, priced them out, etc., etc. Is a stop or half a stop that important? Pentax made a fine 500/4.5 MF, and I think still makes a 400/5.6 AF. Both Nikon and Pentax made 600/5.6s, which would be lighter than the 600/4s, but you are probably looking for an AF lens. If Pentax made a 400/4 it would probably be pretty big. I've thought at times that I'd love to see a 400/4.0 from Nikon but considering the size and cost of the 400/3.5 from Nikon I'm not sure it'd gain me much. Contax does make a 400/4 USM IIRC. DJE
Re: Opinions: A35/2 vs K30/2.8
> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:07:25 -0400 > From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Opinions: A35/2 vs K30/2.8 > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > Not a lot of answers... The A lens is certainly an uncommon lens. I > have the M one but have not tried it yet. I might bring it to > Mongolia in july, with 24/2.8, 50/2.8 and 100/2.8 as a back-up kit > alongside a "small" 645 kit (45,75,150). The 35/2 would become my > fast normal lens, although I will try to stick to the 645. It will > be my first medium format shooting... > > Andre I have both these lenses. I have shot tests with them, but I haven't put much mileage on the 30 and haven't touched the 35 in a decade. Both of these lenses perform as well as anything I've tested at their focal length (35 and 28) from Pentax or Nikon and are in my opinion among Pentax's best lenses. A35 has staggering center sharpness, except at f/2 where I found it slightly worse than the Nikkor AF and the original Super-Takumar. From f/2.8 on the center is tack sharp. Edge sharpness isn't great at f/2 or f/2.8, slightly worse than the Super Tak and noticeably worse than the Nikkor AF. By f/4 the edges tighten up and are as good or better than any other 35 I tested. K30 is consistently a little better in the center than at the edges, but shows less difference across the field than the A35. The A35 is sharper in the center at all apertures than the K30 (slightly worse at f/2 than K30 at f/2.8) but only a hair sharper than the K30 at the edges (except at f/2.8 where the K is better) Note that NO 28mm lens I tested produced better than average performance wide open, and most were still noticeably weak one stop down from that. As a group the 28s performed worse than the 35s, in general equalling the performance of the 35s only when closed down an extra stop. The A35 and K30 follow this pattern, with the K30 a "B" lens at f/4 and an "A" lens at f/5.6, whereas the the A35 is in "A" territory by f/4. These results, of course, are only valid for my particular samples without corroborating evidence. Personally, I find the 28/50 combination to be a better fit for my shooting style than the 24/35/85 sort of combination. 35 isn't wide enough to be wide for me, so I would opt for the K30. For other styles of shooting, I can see that a "wide 50" might be just the thing. I was all set to take the K30 to England on vacation, and then I lucked into an M28/2. I'm still leaning towards the K30, although the M28 has performed well so far. DJE
Re: Nikon to abandon film...
> > ARE Pentax dropping the MZ-S? > > They are. I've been told that in practice you can no longer sell anything > costing more than 100 $ and using film, including MF. Only sub-100 $ > compacts resist, because you still cannot get a decent digicam in that price > range. > > Dario And yet Nikon is dropping their film compacts... Realistically a good digital P&S is still more expensive than the $225 entry-level film SLRs. Presumably this accounts for the number of new cameras introduced in the last couple of years in this price range. > From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I have been told, by a Nikon sponsored pro, that there will be no new Nikon > SLR film camera. Now I guess the question is what does new mean? Would a >slightly modified F5 count as new or not? Given Nikon's past history, I wouldn't trust the statement of a "Nikon sponsored pro" to be all that well-informed. There are persistent rumors of a new film camera, presumed to be an "F6", in the Nikon community. I'm not sure I believe them, because the F-series sold primarily to pros and rich snooty amateurs, almost all of whom now shoot DSLRs. Who would buy an F6? Apparently, nobody is buying F5s. The price of a used F5 has dropped $400 or so in a year. What "slight modifications" could be put into an F5 anyway? Perhaps the AF system of the D2H, to appeal to the 3 pros still using Nikon film cameras? This might account for the apparent impending demise of the MZ-S. People who are going to spend that kind of money on a top-of-the-line camera are buying the *istD, or Canon. The pool of serious, film-using amateurs who will spend almost a grand on a camera must be very small. If the MZ-S DOES disappear, either something has to replace it or I would expect the "pro" lenses to start to disappear as well. Do they really think you're going to put a 300/2.8 FA* on a film *ist? Apparently people do occasionally buy them, since the A*s are still somewhat availible, and the FA*s are apparently still in production. If Nikon put out a new film camera, I would expect it to be lower down the market than the F-series so as to be an advanced amateur camera that could be used as a basis for a D100 successor, say an "N95". It would presumably fit in the line between the $1000 F100 (upon which the D1 series was based) and the $400 N80 (upon which the D100 was based). Problem is, can you sell a $600-750 film SLR anymore? Pentax doesn't seem to think so. It may also be the case that you don't need to or can't have a volume-sales film camera to base a DSLR on any more. Consider that the D2H is the first DSLR from Nikon (or Canon, I think) that is NOT based on a film SLR and has technologies that are NOT availible in any of the company's film cameras. I'm not going to believe that digital has killed film until we start seeing a lot more DSLRs that are not based on film SLRs. I'm very curious why the *istD is not in fact a digitized version of the *ist. DJE
Re: canon vs pentax
>>as to keep people with good old Pentax lenses from >> selling them in disgust and buying Canon. >Sure, that would be the same Canon that completely abandoned their >user base once already? >At least Pentax doesn't have that in their history. >William Robb No? My M 28/2.0 cannot be persuaded to fit on my Spotmatic F. While you CAN fit old screw-mount Pentax lenses on a K-mount body with an adapter, you will get lesser features, and you can't go the other way. IIRC there is a Canon converter doodad to allow you to put old breech-lock FD lenses on an EOS, with lesser features, but you can't go the other way. Same deal. Nikon and Leica are the only companies I know of who have maintained one mount standard in their SLR lines. Minolta, Canon, and Contax switched over to go AF. Pentax switched over to go K-mount (rather late, considering the age of other bayonet-mount systems), and Olympus basically threw in the towel and went to 4/3. Of course you'll get fewer features with new and old Nikon gear but they WILL mount (other than a few real oddballs). Personally, I think Canon made the right choice. Their mount was probably the worst on the market (small, hard to operate). The new mount, with its huge bore, electronic contacts, and short focus distance, could accept a lot of lenses designed for older, smaller mounts (Nikon, for example), plus it gave them a lot of optical design freedom. The commanding technological edge Canon has right now stems partially from committing to the future rather than trying to maintain backward compatibility. Of course given their poor market share and arguably inferior technology at the time, Canon had little to lose. I'm not sure that's the case with Pentax now. It was probably the case with Pentax in 1975 when the K-mount came out. Pentax did re-issue most if not all of the SMC-T glass in "K" versions (I get the impression Canon did much the same). DJE
Re: IS in *istD
> From: "Nick Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Is there any reason IS couldn't be implemented in software? >You could produce a 5MP image from a 6MP sensor by using the extra pixels >to shift the image. You'd need to measure the movement of the camera, >which could be done using a sensor of some sort in the body, or could >conceivably be done by measuring the movement of the image on the CCD. >This could mean that IS could be added to the *istD by a firmware >upgrade. > > This is all speculation, and I could be talking rubbish. > > Any comments? I doubt you could get fast enough response from the computerized parts of current DSLRs. You could more reasonably implement panorama-tools-like mathematical correction of lens flaws in firmware too, but apparently that is still too difficult an operation to get the cameras to do on the fly. My limited understanding of IS suggests that you will get much better results by implementing the stabilizing in the optical path rather than at the film plane whether you are moving the film plane mechanically or electronically. It's rather amazing how much you CAN'T do to correct flaws in a photographic image by computer. Unsharp mask, for example, does not in fact correct for bad focus--it just compensates for it by increasing local contrast. DJE
Re: canon vs pentax
> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:04:46 -0400 > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: canon vs pentax > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On Jun 12, 2004, at 2:18 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: > > Over the years, > > Pentax may well have put out more, and the interoperability across > > generations has only recently been compromised. > > > In what way? With the new firmware, the K and M lenses can be used on > the *ist D with what amounts to ap priority auto exposure. No. With what amounts to a spotmatic lever. A vast improvment over only metering wide open as originally released, or the Nikon D100 which won't meter old lenses at all, but still not as responsive as true auto exposure or auto metering in manual mode if you are working fast in changing light. >What more > could one expect? IIRC some of pentax's most recent FILM bodies also lack the aperture feedback lever, and they don't have the firmware fix as far as I know. Also IIRC the new DA lenses don't have aperture rings, which makes them kind of hard to use on an MX. Granted, with the decreased image circle of an APS-format-optimized lense you wouldn't want to, but that is just another decrease in intergenerational compatability. This doesn't surprise me, as mechanical connections between camera and lens are a bit old-fashioned. As to what I could expect, I expect Pentax to continue to sell one camera with an aperture feedback lever or to re-issue or replace the lenses that will be obsoleted by no longer having such a camera, so as to keep people with good old Pentax lenses from selling them in disgust and buying Canon. DJE
Re: long glass
I'd expect that the 70-200IS is one of Canon's best lenses. That focal length range is very heavily used by many sorts of pros, and Nikon and Canon have been knocking themselves out to make a great 70-200 in order to win sales from pros. Pentax has made fewer versions of a 70-200/2.8 kind of lens, and has probably committed fewer resources to it. This is probably true of the 16-35 and the 300/2.8 as well, as these three lenses are the standard trio for many kinds of pro shooters. Canon and Nikon have made several versions since the AF era started. OTOH, from what I understand from former Nikon users who switched to Canon, some of the wides and mid-teles are not as impressive. I think a number of these are older optical designs and focal lengths less favored by pros. Pentax might well be quite competitive outside the "pro standards" focal lengths. Certainly Pentax has made more small, good lenses than Nikon or Canon who normally opt for cheap and nasty or very good with resulting increases in size and price. And at 200mm, I wouldn't discount the A* 200/2.8, which I found to be substantially better than the legendary 180/2.8 ED Nikkor. Team it up with an A* 85/1.4 and one of the good 135s and you've got Pentax glass at least as good as the 70-200, and faster, if a bit more cumbersome and expensive. DJE
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >This I don't understand, the 24's are no more problematic than the >28's. The K 3.5 and 2.8 have excellent >reputations, the FA 2.0 also. The only one I've heard really bad things >about is the A 2.8 which has mixed >reviews, sample variations anyone? I've heard some uncomplementary things about the FA 2.0 at wider apertures. I had a K 2.8 which did not impress me (not bad, but not impressive), and I have a Super Takumar (perhaps SMC, based on S/N) 3.5 which is likely the same as the K 3.5 and is weak towards the edges at "wider" apertures. It's not that they are worse than other manufacturer's 24s, but that 24s in general are not as good as 28s at wide (especially really wide) apertures and towards the edges. Of the half-dozen Pentax and Nikon 24s I've used, none of them could compare to a good 28. >The 135's are also given mostly high marks. The K 3.5 2.8 and A 1.8 >lenses are legendary, I owned an A 1.8. It's at least as good as the Nikkor 2.0 at wider apertures, but that's not saying much as the Nikkor is arguably Nikon's worst short tele prime. Again, the A 1.8 is not bad compared to similar lenses, but compared to a good 85 or 105 it's not as good, at least at wide stops where you actually want to use the thing. > The FA 2.8 and F 2.8 are >at least equal in optical quality to the K's the M 3.5 is a solid >performer if not quite up to the standards of the previous >lenses. I've not gotten my hands on the F/FA, but I hear good things about them. Perhaps it was an attempt by Pentax to make up for the A 2.8! I owned an M 3.5 which was solid, but not great (a fine performance for a basic, inexpensive lens). > Only the A 2.8 has a less than stellar reputation. >Which is >just what you'd expect from a class of lenses that >has had the amount of history and R&D that 135's have had lavished on >them over the years. OK, I was going back a bit. The Super Takumar and first model SMC Takumar 2.5s aren't great. The second model SMC Takumar is presumably equal to the K 2.5? In comparison, 105mm lenses were quite good a long way back. >The non SMC models of the 135's are another matter entirely, but they >were budget lenses. So are many 28-xx zooms. A dirt-cheap M 50/2.0 is still a very good lens. I didn't say that the 24s and 135s were BAD, but that they didn't attain the same consistant high caliber that almost all Pentax's primes in the 28-105mm range did. It's just harder to make longer or wider focal length lenses that perform as well as more moderate focal lengths. Look at resolution numbers and such and you will see a real drop-off outside the 28-105 range for all manufacturers. DJE
shutter speeds off ?
I got the first couple of rolls shot in earnest with my KX back yesterday. They show 2 things: 1) M28/2.0 is fine at f/2.0 2) most of a stop of overexposure. The overexposure helped the roll of fuji print film I shot, but was a little hard on the velvia. The most obvious cause of the problem is that the meter in the KX is a little off. This is easy to compensate for, once I conclude exactly how far off it is. I can rule out lens issues as I was shooting with three different lenses. There is one other possibility, given the mechanical shutter of the KX. I was shooting a fairly narrow range of shutter speeds, 1/30th to 1/125th, because it was a dark day and velvia is slow. While I normally see shutter timing issues at high or low speeds, could it be that the middling speeds of my KX are too slow, leading to overexposure of almost a stop? Anybody else with a KX or similarly-shuttered camera (was there one?) experienced this? Personally, I suspect a combination of the meter itself and faulty tone-analysis on my part. DJE
Re: baby-D wish/expect list
>From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I admit I'm a little surprised by some of these comments. I think it's >clear that the Baby D will have: >- a 6 MP sensor Agreed that this is what is availible and likely. What I meant was that I'd accept 4. I can get film-quality 8x10s out of 2.77. >- CF card storage SD card slots are starting to show up in DSLRs as well as a lot of P&Ss. Given how much Pentax likes small and light, I wouldn't discount the idea. >less clear is whether or not they will include the firmware fix for the >K/M lense. This assumes that the camera will have the DoF preview >feature, which is how the "fix" works. I'd think this would be pretty cheap to implement, and pretty standard these days (although I haven't really looked at an entry-level camera in years). If it isn't there, it's probably for marketing reasons. >I'm picturing a digital camera based on the MZ-60 or film *ist body. >As a matter of fact the film *ist is configured like a DSLR with a large >LCD panel (B&W) on the back. My wild guess is that they'll base the >Baby D on this body. Makes sense, as there isn't much else to base it on except maybe the ZX-M. There's no need for a new baby film body because that's what the *ist is. DJE
*istD unsharpness
>Rob Studdert wrote: > So now I'm confused. Are you discussing lens capabilities, DOF, relative > position of the focus plane, post-export sharpening, print quality or the *ist > Ds apparent sensor sharpness? >First we have to agree the problem does exist. Then we can try to >understand >which is the main factor responsible for that. >I'm afraid we haven't still agreed there is a problem to investigate, as >Sylwek and myself seem to be the only two that noticed it, while others >deny. >Dario Bonazza OK, from what little I've shot with the *istD I'll say that it appeared to me a little less sharp than the images I get from my identically-sensored Nikon D100. OTOH, it is known that Pentax uses less in-camera electronic sharpening, so this alone may be the difference. I find that I do not have to unsharp mask my Nikon D100 and D1H shots in photoshop to get the level of sharpness that I am looking for, whereas I do with the *istD. This suggests that maybe Pentax was at least a little too conservative for most users. There are various other places that Pentax might be losing sharpness. There's the anti-aliasing filter. The Nikon D2H apparently has better apparent sharpness because the anti-aliasing filter is weaker. There's the oft-mentioned bayer interpolation. There's the possibility that the Pentax lens designs somehow don't interact well with the camera even though they work fine with film. I'm also curious, Dario and other detractors, if you've managed to test multiple *istDs? It could be that the AF is a little off, or the "film plane" (or focusing screen) is not quite where it should be, so that everything coming out of your particular camera is in fact slightly out of focus. I had a Nikon 8008 that never seemed to produce sharp pictures, MF or AF, and I actually had it checked for back-focus accuracy. It was apparently OK but I'm convinced somthing was misaligned somewhere because at large apertures I was consistently having trouble with meticulously focused stationary subjects not being sharp and the plane of focus clearly not where it was supposed to be. It LOOKED sharp in the finder, but not on film. It's also possible that the sensor or filter or something is simply a little defective so that your particular camera isn't performing up to spec. Maybe Pentax simply doesn't like sharpness? Most of the really sharp lens designs have been replaced by less sharp ones. DJE
Joe's ultrawides test
> From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > F4.0 and 5.6. The Sigma is noticeably sharper than the FA 24. The DA > 16-45 at 20 mm. is also much sharper than the FA 24, and runs so close > to the Sigma that I cannot pick a winner. 24s, especially fast 24s, appear to be rather hard to build. I've heard unflattering things about the FA 24, and plenty of folks (me among them) have harsh words for the Nikkor AIS 24/2.0 (which was not updated in autofocus mount...). The 24mm Takumar screwmount is better than the 20 but noticeably worse wide open and towards the edges than a 28 or 35. Apparently technology hasn't made great inroads here since the takumar days. > Yes, the DA 16-45 is noticeably sharper than the FA* 24 at those stops. > Take note, those who still claim that primes are always sharper. To be fair, you'd need a DA 20 prime to test against. Still, modern zooms are quite good if the designers don't compromise on price. I'd put my 70-200 against almost any prime in that focal length range. > What did strike me about the FA* 24, though, is how consistent the > images were from f2.0 through 5.6. There was little difference between > wide open and stopped down. I haven't seen too many lenses like that. I > often shoot wide-angle primes indoors without flash, so I need them to > be sharp at large apertures. The FA* 24 is nearly as sharp at f2.0 as it > is at smaller apertures. The "must have" solution is a Canon EOS1DS and 24/1.4, or simply a film camera. Presumably neither of these is an acceptable option. I'm stuck in exactly the same boat. > Conclusion: Ths Sigma's poor performance wide open, along with its size > and weight, mean that it will not be part of my traveling kit. It might be argued that a 20/1.8 that is no good wide open is hardly worth having instead of a 20/2.8. Why not the FA 20/2.8? Nice to see a review of the Sigma 20, though. I've been eyeing it for essentially the same reasons, and the fact that it is cheaper than any manufacturer's 20/2.8 has always worried me. > I need Pentax to come out with a fast (f2.0 or better) DA prime in a > focal length between 16 and 20 mm. Have the lens assembler in Vietnam > put one together, Pentax, and I will buy it. I'm not sure you want to pay what it costs to make a 20/2.0 that is actually good optically. What little I found on the 21/2.0 Olympus lens was not very complementary, and as far as I know they are the only other company besides Sigma to try it. I'll bet that a good 20/2.0 could be made, even by Pentax, but that it would be big, heavy, and expensive. Consider that the 28/1.4 Nikkor--which is quite good--costs $1600 and is the size and weight of an 85/1.4. Presumably a 20/2.0 would be at least as hard to do right. DJE
Re: photography vs Cameras
>From: George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Eliminating the technology threshold opens up the field to more folks >that >are good at seeing the image but not good technologists. The "leaves you free to concentrate on framing" theory. I find increasingly that pros are trusting automation to handle the technical stuff because what really matters is content. More of my co-workers now use matrix-metering, AF, etc. As I understand it, Steve McCurry (the National Geographic afghan girl photographer) has always been in the "let the camera do the technical stuff" camp. I certainly have known pros with great image-capturing talent who were shaky technically. I'm more intrigued by the "technology inhibits greatness" argument that someone implied. Assuming that great photographers are a given percentage of the total, there should be MORE great photographers now because there are more photographers total. Given that web publishing is cheap and easy, we should be able to see lots of great photograpny. The argument, apparently, is that we don't and therefore it can be suspected that intelligent cameras are inhibiting greatness. I'm not sure I agree that we don't see more great photography, but I might believe that not having to really learn the technical basis of photography might stunt a photographer's development of his craft. The idea that you don't have to learn anything to get decent pictures may keep you from getting involved and aggressively working on technique. >From what I can see, in the areas where technology and automation are a big win in speed and ease of use, the photography HAS gotten a lot better. The standards in sports action and photojournalism have gotten a LOT higher. I'll betcha that the pictures that the average guy takes of his kids are better too, with AF that works and auto flash. Remember that a lot of the historic "great photos" were POSED, because you almost had to back then to guarantee you got what you wanted. That's fine for some kinds of work, but a moral slippery slope for others. The ethical standards have probably improved as the technical ability to get what you want without cheating has improved. In other sub-genres of photography where technical skill is still necessary (studio lights don't have a "program mode") or speed of working isn't an issue there is probably less positive impact of technology. Smarter cameras probably won't help develop the next Ansel Adams, and may actually work against it. They can be a real boon for the Weegees of the world. DJE
reverse ekphrastic offensive
OK, after some time defending myself on the "rich suburban mom" thing (mosty pointing out that it was uttered in the gear/skill/results context not the pro/amateur/uses context) I figured I'd actually address the pro/amateur/uses thing by refering to a concept I bumped into in my abortive graduate work in visual communications. (What actually got aborted was the program, not my studies...) The concept is "ekphrasis", which is loosely defined as detailed literary description of an actual thing which is intended to bring the subject before the mind's eye of the listener. The context in which I encountered it was that they have ekphrastic descriptions of some paintings from antiquity, and recently they found the actual paintings. Lo and behold, some of the stories depicted by the paintings and referred to by the ekphrastic descriptions have bits that are not in the actual paintings. The paintings were being used by the authors as visual prompters to help them remember the stories depicted in the paintings. The authors were bringing their own knowledge of the stories to bear in writing their descriptions. The actual subjects were not the paintings, but a story known to the teller. This is often the key difference between photography intended for private consumption and that intended for public consumption (as journalism, advertising, art, etc). Many pictures taken for private use are used as visual "hooks" to hang memories on, and some or much of their value stems from what the viewer brings to it from their own specific experience and knowledge of the subject. A photograph used this way does not have to be particularly good technically, nor does it have to be composed to tell the story. It will be a successful picture if the viewer can use it to remember the event portrayed, or if through knowledge of the subject the viewer feels that the moment captured is somehow especially true, or flattering, or whatever. Without specific knowledge of the subject, such photographs often do not work well. Looking over someone else's wedding album-- especially if you don't know anybody in it--is horribly dull no matter how much the album means to its owner. >From what I can tell, most amateur snapshots are of this type--pictures OF things, but not necessarily pictures which SAY things. I've taken my share of them, and I still do take such pictures for myself. By contrast, photographs taken as art, journalism, advertising, etc rather precisely work as they are intended to because the viewer does not have specific experience and knowledge of the subject. They can call on the viewer's general knowlege of similar subjects and the human condition in general, but any details must be explicitly communicated visually. The visual statement must stand alone using only what is in the frame to move the viewer with its beauty, insight, etc. Visual professionals must be strong communicators foremost. This need for an explicit statement requires precise composition to juxtapose elements, eliminate elements, etc. It requires sufficient technical merit for the viewer to make out what is intended or the picture is hard to "read" correctly. Many such photographs make use of symbolic elements to add "strength" to a photo which often has no direct personal connection to the viewer. In my abortive graduate studies, I found that removing the ability to identify people or places (by tight cropping, silhouetting, etc) tended to cause viewers to understand the photograph as a symbolic statement about the human condition rather than a specific statement about the subjects. Historically, people have felt this sort of photograph to be compelling even when they do not have a personal connection to the subject. Most of the "great" photographs are quite abstract and general, probably because they do not require any specific knowledge of the circumstances under which they were taken to appreciate. Photographs of the communicative sort are successful not because of what the viewer brings to the picture, but because of what they bring away from it. One of the hardest things to do in editing and sharing pictures is to remember that most often the viewer does not bring to the photo what you did. The fact that the moment of exposure was particularly important to you somehow doesn't matter much if the content of the photo doesn't SHOW what was important. I often see examples of this at work, where reporters will take a camera to an event and take pictures. They KNOW what is important, and they usually manage to point the camera at the right thing. Rarely, however, do they manage to take a picture that shows the reader what was important without having to tell them with words as well. It is all too easy to point your camera at a story without producing a photograph that tells that story. If you know the story, the photo will still be useful to you in recalling the story, but to a viewer withou
Re: photography vs cameras
Hi,
>>"I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team
>>at
>>a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8
>>with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than
>>what
>>I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced
>>she
>>got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures ("here's Jake before his
>>race"...). That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring
>>to.
>perhaps she was a professional photographer spending some time with
>her children, and knew exactly what she was doing. To be honest, your
>assumptions say far more about your prejudices than they do about her
>photography.
Of course they do. I did not, as has been pointed out, see the results of
her shooting. From the standpoint of a photojournalist, her photos
were, given where and when she was pointing the camera, likely to be
unimpressive images AS PHOTOJOURNALISM. She was not a photojournalist,
but a mom. I know what she was up to because I talked to her. She was
shooting pictures for the team banquet. In THAT context my
photojournalistic photos probably would not have been well received
(too few kids, not smiling, etc). Most team-banquet style photos would
not be well reviewed in artistic and technical contexts because they
are not intended to be "art" or "saleable". They serve the user well,
but are not "great photography". They aren't intended to be.
The people bemoaning the death of "photography" are overlooking the fact
that the goal of most photography is not "photography".
>I've been photographing children at a safari park today, using several
>thousand dollars worth of Contax equipment - including a 300mm lens
>and x2 converter, like your suburban mom. The children (11 and 7 years
>old) took at least 25% of the photographs, and most of those that I took
>may not have reached your obviously high standards
I have no standards for other people's private photography, unless I have
to edit it at work or some such. I actually have a lot of trouble
critiquing other people's work because I KNOW I have a strong trained-in
perspective on it. I'm not real sure what the standards and assumptions
of the rest of the photographic world are. This is the main reason that
I don't contribute to the PAW discussion here on PDML.
A lot of gear is crap, and is going to produce technically inferior
results even in skilled hands [Shel's original assertion, if I read him
correctly]. A lot of pictures are "crap" (by most artistic or
professional standards) even if taken with the best gear [A point often
made by Cotty, and what I was originally alluding to in my response].
Neither of these things matters if the user is satisfied with the results.
Crap persists because it is satisifying people somehow despite being crap,
and that's fine.
DJE
Re: More rumors on Baby-D!
>skill and ability are foremost, but if you have that already, the >equipment >counts a huge amount. i just read Arthur Morris' book on bird >photography. >net summary - if you've got the skill, not getting exactly the hardware >needed to do the job is a waste of your time. you'll make up for the cost >in >the vastly higher rate of saleable shots. >Herb Thanks Herb! This is exactly what I've been trying to say in my blithering. DJE
Papa-D
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:24:05 -0400 > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: big glass and converters > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > weather resistant body at least and at least a few lenses, 5fps or higher > frame rate with at least 10 pictures on the fly, and more megapixels. 6 > megapixels is fine for magazine work but more is always better, other things > being equal. if Pentax is going to deliver a $5K body, it will have to > deliver the goods. if they aren't, then i will find a $5K body that will. Yes indeed. I wouldn't have expected Pentax to deliver a $5K body, so if that is in fact rumored I'm surprised. It might still not have a 5fps "motor drive" given Pentax's apparent lack of interest in such things--it might instead be a competitor to the 1DS and Kodak 14N in having a slow frame rate and much higher resolution. This would seem more in keeping with Pentax design philosophy. At the moment, only the Canon 1Dmk2 meets your specs. Its worth noting than only Canon and Kodak make anything as expensive as $5k anymore. I don't think the $5K price point will last long given how capable the $1500 cameras are for many professional uses. DJE
photography vs cameras
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:44:58 -0400
From: "Shawn K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I said:
>"I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team
>at
>a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8
>with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than what
>I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced
>she
>got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures ("here's Jake before his
>race"...). That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring to.
>This sort of thing is only annoying because of what I could have done
>with that same equipment..."
to which Shawn said:
>This is an interesting attitude, because in the beginning part of your
>post
>you mention how no one cares about quality anymore, and its depressing to
>see third party zooms attached to expensive 1,000+ bodies. Well here we
>have the very scenario you apparently wish for and now that annoys you.
Not quite. Shel said "garbage in, garbage out" -bad gear has killed
great photography. I'm normally the gear-nut, but my point was that
even somebody with the best possible gear was producing what appeared to
be mediocre photography, and was presumably satisfied by her results.
Photography is simply becoming less elitist in its uses as more
gear becomes affordable to more people.
>personally think it's nice that a suburban mom spends her money on such
>quality equipment, and that she cares enough about her son to want the
>very best pictures possible of him...
Bravo mom, yes, but the frustration is that photographer skill is usually
much more important than equipment quality in producing quality images.
If the goal is more close-up, focused pictures then the gear helps and is
of service to tyros. Cameras, and computers, are slowly getting to the
point where they DO help unskilled people produce better results, but not
nearly as fast as the ad campaigns would have you believe. Both still
take skill to get good results.
If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would
buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer.
Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent
the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality
camera. Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other
professions. Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't
make any sense of my Ford Escort.
The sad-and-funny reaction to guys who put a $300 lens on a $1000 camera
is that most serious photographers would do better with a $1000 lens on
a $300 camera. Most of them would do better with a $300 lens on a $300
camera than some putz with money does with a $1000 lens on a $1000 camera,
except at some optical-quality level.
>Also, all this ruckus about AF is rather old news as well. Ditching a
>system because they don't have one particular AF lens you want is
>idiotic.
Not if your income or enjoyment of photography depends on it it is not.
The guys who are complaining that Pentax does not make a particular 600mm
lens or a 10MP DSLR are not the average amateur.
DJE
Papa-D lust
>> >> I don't want to wait that long for a better DSLR than the *ist-D. >> >Ditto. I want a ten megapixel camera very soon. Without it, Pentax is a >non-player. Perhaps they're listening. >Paul And Nikon, KonicaMinolta, Leica, Contax, and Sigma. Canon, Kodak, and Fuji are the only companies with a 10+ megapixel camera and each of those makers has ONE such model at $5000-8000. None of these companies are "non-players" yet, although many of them appear to be becoming marginal. I still say that most DSLRs are used by pros in certain fields, and for them 4-6MP seems to be fine. Getting the price down seems to be more important in most market niches than getting the resolution up. I don't offhand know what I or most other people would DO with a 10MP camera given that I can get 8x10 prints that rival those I got from film from my 2.77MP camera and presumably can get much better from my 6MP one. If you NEED more resolution, you could always shoot film... Critically, Canon, Kodak, and Fuji appear to have sources for unique chips. Nikon apparently does now, but haven't impressed many with it. Pentax and others are dependant on somebody else to create the new chips. I'm surprised that we haven't seen an 8-9MP cheap sensor to replace the 6MP cheap sensors that are currently in use, but perhaps most of the market does not need more resolution, or perhaps all the manufacturing effort is going into pounding out sensors for the current 6MP models. DJE
big glass and converters
>From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >an option for me, by preference, and if Pentax doesn't have a creditable >high end DSLR announced by then, it's time to switch. Just out of curiousity, what's not credible about the *istD? I know a lot of pros using Nikon D100s or Canon 10Ds, both of which are very similar featurewise. The feature that I find the *istD lacking most for my style of pro work is a "motor drive", and aside from the LX, MX, and PZ-1P Pentax has never catered to serious motor drive users. (the rest of my "makes me uneasy about using *istD for pro work" list: -build quality compared to top-of-the-line -inconvenient metering functionality with older lenses -inferior readouts and options in firmware compared to Nikon and Canon -lack of USM lenses ) - Original Message - >From: "Cliff Nietvelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 11:09 PM >Subject: Re: Pentax plans to focus on digital > Another reason: the lenses that Pentax offer do not > appeal to me: no AF 500mm, 400mm f2.8/4 and no AF > teleconverters or IS or USM. I can live without USM or > IS but to have no AF teleconverters is inexcusible. > How hard can they be to design? Without USM or some other internal-focus-motor, very hard due to the linkages required. Nikon never did it--their AF converters are USM-lenses only. My experience has been that with big glass like that you REALLY want USM anyway. Nikon finally got the clue there, as did Minolta. > However, when shopping for a big lens, I found it > cheaper and more are available from Canon or Nikon. > For example, KEH has had many 300mm f2.8's by both > Nikon/Canon for around $2000 (non IS and some AF-I). > I've seen very few AF 300mm 2.8's from Pentax, and any > manual focus one's cost about $2000 used anyhow. This is true even new. The Pentax big glass is more expensive, because they don't sell many of them. I was pricing this stuff at B&H and KEH last week for kicks. It seems odd to pay KEH $500 for a 300/4 M* because the A* and F*'s are unavailible and the FA is more than $700 new. It's doubly odd given the availibility of 300/4 AF Nikkors for $350 and 300/4.5 MF Nikkors for less. I think a lot of the good Pentax glass is being hoarded, and it is driving up the price. I was a little surprised not to be able to find a K28/3.5, the Nikon and Canon versions of which are plentiful and cheap (and probably worse...) > is true for 500mm's. Any 600mm's I have seen for sale > by Pentax are the A*-600mm f5.6: too slow & no AF. The 500/4.5 Pentax seems availible (except in screw-mount!) and cheap. I can see that for some uses you HAVE to have f/4 or better, but that 600/4 is mighty big, heavy, and expensive no matter what brand you are using. I'd think that a lot of folks could get by with a 600/5.6 or 400/5.6 which are much smaller and cheaper. If you can live with the optical quality loss, I'd think a 1.4x converter would get you more or less to these specs as well. Pentax hasn't really competed for the "guys who buy $6000 lenses" market in a long time. DJE
Re: New Pentax DSLR's
>Not necessarily, I think the D70 is not a dumbed down D100 - it is >actually better in many respects. In many respects, yes. It HAD to be a better camera than the 300D since the 300D had about a 6-month head start. However it has a couple of 300D-isms that make it hard to use for me, probably deliberately. 1) AF mode is controlled in the menu system, not by switch. If you actually USE AF, this is a show-stopper. At least you CAN set it, as opposed to the 300D which chooses mode itself. Granted, for the intended user group this is a non-issue, but I also suggest that it was done to keep pros from buying it. 2) No battery grip, gives no vertical control array. This is superable, but annoying. Every Nikon I've used has had a vertical shutter release option with motor drive attached. 3) No mechanical aperture connection. Nothing at the $1000-1500 price point has such, but the pro DSLRs do and it makes older lenses more useable. Kudos to Pentax for the firmware fix allowing almost-normal use of older lenses, but I don't see Nikon and doing it because they'd love to sell you a more expensive camera if you really need a mechanical connection. Pentax doesn't have a D1/D2 series camera to "protect". Hopefully this will keep Pentax from "dumbing down" a cheaper DSLR to get serious users to buy a more expensive model. > With any luck we should be getting >more for less - or so that is how the digital upgrade path normally >runs. I think you can probably bank on all the major manufacturers >bringing out at least one new model a year for the next few years. Actually, at most levels we've been getting "more for the same price", not "more for less", at least in film cameras. Prices have been coming down because they are figuring out how to make less camera. Nikon's D2H is taking a beating in the market from the Canon EOS1Dmk2, and I think it is because Nikon tried to move the price point down (D1-$5000, D2H-$3250) whereas Canon put out as much camera as they could at the old $5000 price point. DJE
Re: AF
Somebody (I foolishly deleted the post so I forget who) pointed out that while AF may be more likely to produce sharp action shots, MF is more fun because of the challenge of "doing it yourself". I've gotta agree there. Most of my shooting time is on the job, and I normally have to use the best equipment I've got to the fullest extent of its capability to do the job right, which leaves me little room for the "challenge" of older gear. I was talking with a veteran photojournalist a couple weeks ago at the state basketball tourney and we agreed that while the new pro DSLRs and lenses are superbly capable tools that are giving us better images than we ever got before, there is absolutely no "romance" to them. We both use much older, simpler cameras for non-professional work. Of course I can normally control the pace of the things that I shoot for fun, which is almost the exact opposite of photoJ which is gear-intensive because you never know what you are in for! There is a satisfaction that comes from getting great pictures with older equipment that is less capable and more demanding of skill and knowledge from the photographer. I envy those of you who shoot entirely for fun and can experiment and goof off more with your cameras. Nothing dampens a hobby like taking it pro... DJE
Re: AF
> Well, no, you can not manual focus, at 8 frames a second. But, if you are only > trying to get 1 excellent shot. Then I submit not only can you manual focus, but > you are much more likely to get that 1 shot than if you were using AF. Why? You can always turn off the hose and shoot AF in the same slow style that you would with a K1000. The hose is to compensate for TIMING issues, not for FOCUS issues. The EOS1V can AF at 8fps. My point was that at 8fps you don't HAVE to have perfect focus or timing if you are zone focusing--you will get SOMETHING that is sharp even if it is not the best possible shot. This is often more important in a professional situation than getting the best possible shot. Sports is very unpredictable, so even if your timing and focus IS flawless you might actually miss the best shot by optimizing for a really good moment slightly before or after it. I'm not sure why you couldn't MF at 8fps in a focus tracking situation. You couldn't adjust focus by eye, but you could continue to turn the focus ring as you had been turning it before you started up the machine gun. It's hard enough to adjust focus by eye at 3.5 fps. > I think, even you, Mr. Edwin, will admit you got a higher percentage of > sharp shots with manual focus. Quite simply, no. I suspect most people's opinions of AF are based on what Minolta Maxxums could do and not what the EOS1V can do, since most people haven't got the money for a 1V and many folks would choose not to carry such a thing even if they could afford it. In action situations I get a much higher percentage of sharp shots with AF than with MF, and I've had 15 years of professional experience MFing action. Even in non-action situations I get a noticeably higher percentage of sharp shots with AF, but the percentage of "stupid AF" errors or inability to find focus sometimes gets to the point where I switch to MF. AF is rarely subtly off, especially in single AF modes where the camera won't fire if it doesn't think it is in focus. With MF, it is very easy to be subtly off, especially with a subject moving a little but not a lot. > Then again I admit that occassionally a high > frame rate, AF, and a little luck will get you a killer shot you would have > missed without them. Actually, the lucky killer shots don't seem to need AF, high frame rate, etc, precisely because they are lucky. I use AF not because I get more once-a-month killer shots but because day-in day-out I get more good shots with it than I did with MF. I was losing good shots to MF error, whereas I lose very few good shots to AF error. I get great shots that I never got before because my AF will track things that in 15 years of full-time MF shooting I never managed to track well. All of my co-workers have said the same thing since switching to AF. > As with everything, it is a trade off. As a working photographer, though, what > is going to make you the most money is what you want to use, as your experience > points out. However, as Paul said, you don't need AF to get sharp shots, > millions of photographers managed to do so for over a hundred years. Then even > managed to get by without autoexposure, and TTL flash, hard as that is for the > young guys to believe. I, too, said that people were getting great action shots without AF for years. I still shoot MF sometimes, but in many situations AF simply causes a drastic reduction in the number of great shots that are not in focus. Back in the all MF, no digital preview days, you simply shot enough to be pretty sure that you would find a sharp, good frame when you developed the film. While I'll admit that I'm spoiled by TTL flash, I still shoot a lot of my stuff metered handheld. When I use the in-camera meter it's always classic centerweighted, and manual exposure. > > NO! Every sports shooter I know uses AF, and they all say it is better > > than they are--surer, faster, better tracking, etc. I shot sports as a > > photojournalist with manual focus cameras for 9 years, and have been > > shooting AF for about 9 months. I have replaced almost everything in my > > sports portfolio because AF is SO MUCH BETTER. OK, this statement was in response to somebody surmising that human reflexes and focus judgement was faster than AF and somebody either quoted or interpreted me out of context. All my first and second hand experience is that modern pro AF is faster to focus and surer to find focus than any human under most conditions. I've had a lot of award-winning sports shooters tell me this. AF is better than humans at SPEED and ACCURACY of manipulating the focus mechanism (which, of course, does not always mean that it focuses where the user intends...) It also surpasses humans in its ability to make and facil
AF
> PS> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2266884&size=lg > This is simply amazing. I don't understand why you used manual focus > and how could you get the water that sharp. For me that part is that > makes this photo, it feels like the surfer is 'cutting' the water. It's not like you can't get sharp action pictures with MF--guys were doing it up until the EOS-1 came out. You normally get fewer sharp shots, and fewer really sharp shots, with MF than with AF. OTOH it only takes one good shot most of the time. > Attila > > >Thanks Attila. I used manual focus because my lens is an a 400/5.6. I >don't own a really long autofocus lens. But I've shot lots of >motorsports with long manual focus lenses. I don't consider MF to be a >disadvantage, and in many cases, it can be an advantage. >The human hand >an eye are probably faster than most autofocus mechanisms. NO! Every sports shooter I know uses AF, and they all say it is better than they are--surer, faster, better tracking, etc. I shot sports as a photojournalist with manual focus cameras for 9 years, and have been shooting AF for about 9 months. I have replaced almost everything in my sports portfolio because AF is SO MUCH BETTER. Of course in the MF days people used a lot of zone focusing and other tricks that negated the need to follow-focus at all. With a 6-8fps motor drive you can pretty much set the focus so that a human subject fills the frame and then fire off a burst as they pass the point of focus and be guaranteed a sharp shot or two. Timing with this method is of course often sub-optimal, but it beats missing focus on the only chance you get. Motorsports would seem a prime candidate for zone focusing. I still shoot some sports this way, and I still shoot some sports MF because AF has its limitations--focus speed is not one of them. And yes, my 400/5.6s are all MF. Nikon doesn't see the need to put out an AF version (?!) and my spotmatics can't handle the Pentax version. AF on the SMC Takumar 400/5.6 would sure be nice, because it's a real bear to focus that slow lens in a spottie viewfinder. DJE
Re: Sigma 20mm. f1.8 EX DG AF
>From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Does anyone have this? If so, what are your impressions? I too would be interested to hear impressions of this lens as I am still looking for a replacement for my 28/1.4 for DSLRs. It's not really that I need f/1.4 that often, but that I'd like my $1400 28mm to actually frame like a 28mm. If I really wanted a 43 I hear that the FA limited is quite nice... I do wish somebody besides Sigma made a 20/2.0 (Olympus did, back in the OM era). Perhaps the fact that only Sigma does suggests that the manufacturers don't feel they can make such a lens up to their standards at a reasonable size and price (not that those factors ever seem to deter Canon...) The fact that Sigma's 20/1.8 sells for less than a Nikon or Pentax 20/2.8 worries me. I've been looking at the Sigma 20, but it's too expensive a gamble given my previous experience with third party lenses. >I need wide primes that are fast because I use them indoors. I am afraid >that the DA 14 f2.8 won't cut it. The widest prime I've got is the FA 24 >f2.0, but its aov on the *ist D isn't wide enough. Have you been shooting digital and really finding that extra stop a problem?? Granted, I'd be happy to have f/2 or f/1.4 wides, but I'm finding that with the underexposure latitude and good high ISO performance of digitals I'm not missing the really wide apertures nearly as much as I thought I would. Most really fast wides are pretty nasty wide open anyway. I'm shooting mostly f/2.8 zooms under photoJ conditions and not having much trouble with getting enough light. >I thought about the Mir 20 mm. f2.5, but it is so thick at the rear that >it may not fit under the *ist D's prism. At 2.5 (?) you might as well get the A/FA 20/2.8, which is from what I've heard a fine lens. I'd be suspicious of the 14 just because I have not heard anything great about ANYBODY's 14s. Perhaps the fact that it isn't full-frame gives the Pentax lens an optical edge. DJE
RE: Memories are made of this
> I want to add more memory to one of my machines. How can I > determine what type of memory is needed? There seeems to be > many types. Also, what about "speed?" Need the speed be > the same as what's currently installed? > > shel If you have documentation for your motherboard, it should say what kind of memory it needs and how it can be installed (older machines sometimes needed memory sticks in pairs, for example, and newer ones can often FIT more memory than they can actually use) Failing that, I'd take one of the chips out and take it to a computer store and have them tell you what the heck it is. There are a couple of different sizes and a lot of different technologies (DDR, SDRAM, etc) and you normally need an exact match to work. Sometimes computers can accept several different kinds (sizes or technologies) and need to be configured in BIOS for this. Usually memory that is faster than specified will work, although I don't know how MUCH faster will work. 100 used to work fine at 66, and 133 at 100, but I don't think they promise any greater difference. Note that the memory that is IN the machine already may in fact be faster than the motherboard spec if the motherboard was an old design and the newer, faster memory was cheaper or easier to find at the time the machine was assembled. This is all assuming PC. For Mac, it should be a bit easier (less variation) but more expensive and possibly harder to find. I know nothing about the inside of a Mac, whereas I build PCs from parts. DJE
cesar's toys
. The plan is to carry the *ist D and an LX (I will probably > take my original one - white cobra) as camera bodies. Lenses will be FA* > 24/2, FA Limited 31/1.8, K 50/1.2, and FA Limited 77/1.8. Film will be slide > probably 50 ISO. The 645n will stay at home. Since I do not have anything > wider than a 28 in my screwmount I will not be taking along any M42 gear... > Though the 85/1.9 would be tempting. What has the 85/1.9 got that the 85/1.8 does not? I know it is a different optical design so I'll believe that some property is better, but I understood the 85/1.8 to be a better design (plus of course there was a K version). Those 85/1.9s are still pretty expensive, or I'd buy one and find out for myself. Unfortunately, the Takumar lens line was fairly weak wider than 28. This may be true of other brands of the time, too. I didn't get the impression that the K-mount line was all that strong wider than 28, with the exceptions of A/FA20, K18. Realistically, while Canon and Nikon may have a few better lenses sub-28, nobody has really good ultrawides with the exception that most companies seem to make a good 20. > This is how I have been travelling around lately. With the intense sun > during most of my shooting I have relied on an external light meter for both > cameras. As a matter of fact I have not had the batteries in my LX for > quite some time. Just out of curiosity, wouldn't a K1000 be almost as good as a batteryless LX? A lot of the nifty LX features involve the meter and flash circuitry. I've got a lot of Spotmatics that I run batteryless, because they are cheaper than any modern camera that can be run batteryless (and not real impressive WITH the battery, compared to a modern camera). DJE
GIMP
>>Alle 17:32, mercoledì 31 marzo 2004, Frits Wüthrich ha scritto: >> I don't like the GIMP very much. My experience is not based on the >> version 2 release though, but on older versions, and only on Linux. >> 16 bit per colour is not supported, no colour management, awkward user >> interface, although one might get used to it, a lot of tools don't have >> a preview for the effects I'm running GIMP 1.2 under linux and windowsME, and photoshop 3.0 and 5.5 under windows3.1 and MacOS 8.5 respectively. I run photoshop 7 in MacOS 9.? at work. The GIMP 1.2 user interface is fairly similar to photoshop 3.0, and appears to have been modeled on it. Photoshop has changed a lot, often for the worse. For what I do, Photoshop 3 was more convenient than 4,5,or 5.5. PS7 seems to have restored a sane UI for photoshop, but I haven't seen CS. It is pro color management that keeps me from using GIMP for work. I've got some nifty curves/levels presets that do about 90% of my digital darkroom work for me, and if you can do things like that in GIMP I haven't figured out how. The lack of proper preview for many tools is an annoyance. GIMP 2.0 may have improved this. GIMP 1.0 did not have dodge and burn, which was a real problem. GIMP 1.2 does not have brush-size cursors (as far as I can tell) which is also a real problem. GIMP 1.2 DOES have some features that I really wish photoshop had--programmable hot keys, for example (PS3 key bindings were changed in PS5, and if you can change them back I haven't figured out how) and scripting interfaces (which photoshop just recently has, although it has always had a powerful macro ability). GIMP also runs on *nix, and is free. These two features explain why I have not bought a version of photoshop since my student discount went away. The cost of PS plus the cost of an operating system to run it in exceeds the cost of a good digital P&S and approaches the cost of a DSLR, or a bag full of lenses. >Thank you, I really want to know what a PhotoShop user miss in The GIMP, >you >have pointed out three non-present features (sry, awkward UI isn't a >missing >features for me ;) ). >I'm going to check out if you are right or if, meanwhile, they have >implemented them... GIMP 2.0 appears to be primarily revamped UI and changes under the hood. I don't know how much additional functionality it has, other than a text tool that is now more like photoshop 5+ than photoshop 3. I recently read a posting, on Rob Galbraith's forums I think, saying that you could run Photoshop 7 under WINE in Linux. Can anybody confirm this? I've got a source of PS7, and it won't offend my ethics to get a free copy of a product that Adobe no longer sells. Last I looked photoshop was one of those applications that gave WINE real trouble, and through PS5 just didn't really work in the WINE environment. DJE
Re: New K Mount DSLR
>Yeah, I don't think there is any profit to Pentax in producing a Baby D. >Not >really. No point in competing with C, they wouldn't capture much of >the >potential 300D market. And they've already dropped the *istD to be more >competitively priced for a mid to upper end DSLR. More optios, sure. And >maybe a >second generation *istD... someday. Or a MF equivalent. Be nicer if they >did one or >both of those anyway. There's a lot more customers for a $1000 DSLR than a $1500 (or so) one, judging from the flood of people buying Canon 300Ds. Personally, I might buy a $1000 Pentax DSLR to put my screw-mount lenses on (if it were slightly more capable than the canon 300D) If that's the *istD in a year, great, but I doubt that they can drop the price THAT much while the camera is still viable in the market. If they don't get another viable DSLR to market, well, maybe I should get that 300D after all. >Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:31:19 -0500 >From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: New K Mount DSLR >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >On the top of the page is a drop-down >where you can get their "April Fools?" >explanation. But it was just too >close to what is practical to be a >really good joke. It might be doable. It MIGHT be doable, but probably not with any of the current APS-sized chips. DSLRing a film SLR seems to cost something like $750-1000. Sure, you could put a smaller, cheaper chip (something from a P&S, for example) in there, with minimal buffer, no screen, etc and possibly get a K-mount DSLR out for maybe $500. I'm not sure who'd want such a thing. Image quality would be low (P&S levels of noise, few megapixels), the crop factor would be even worse than the current 1.5x (since there ISN'T a 3MP-ish APS size sensor unless you could get the original Nikon D1/D1h chips really cheap somewhere), and the screen on the back is one of the major appeals of digital for most users. A $500 digital P&S would likely be a better camera. I know people seem to think that it just HAS to be possible to put out a cheap DSLR. Looking at the $1000 Nikon and Canon cameras, which are in many ways really cheap and cheesy, I don't think it is yet. The fact that P&S digitals and film SLRs have gotten really cheap doesn't seem to matter. The BATTERY ALONE on some of the high-end DSLRs is more expensive than a cheap SLR or DP&S. DJE
Re: big is beautiful
For the record, I have personally seen a VERY HIGH correlation between big, heavy cameras and rugged, reliable cameras. This does not exactly imply causality, however. The big, heavy cameras are usually older and thus better built (and more expensive than modern cameras, by the standards of their time), or modern but more expensive and thus better built. Certainly for the average user a small, light, and cheap camera is preferable. Given modern technology, such a camera can be very capable--the Canon Rebel can run rings around the best of the Spotmatics in almost every way. Small, light, and cheap however is usually in direct opposition to rugged and reliable. I have never met a camera what was both (although a factory-new MX might have been, and rangefinders certainly could be). DJE
Re: big is beautiful
> I certainly understand that a large noisey camera would be a > disadvantage for street photography, and honestly, I think the same > disadvantage would apply to photojournalism, for many of the same > reasons. Photojournalism as I know it is seldom practiced in conditions where stealth and unobtrusiveness are actually important. The subjects know you are there, but they normally don't worry about it. The relatively long time you have to spend on a given shoot to get something good pretty much makes it impossible to be unnoticed. PJs can certainly be DISTRACTING, but that is often as much a matter of their conduct as the noise of their equipment and the constant firing of flashes (which appears much decreased by digital's good high-ISO performance). I also find modern pro DSLRs to be quieter than film cameras, although certainly not as quiet as a rangefinder. There's a lot of damping of sound, plus the high-speed optimizations tend to make the exposure cycle very short. The major noise of pro film SLRs was always the motorized film transport. DJE
Re: big is beautiful
> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:15:35 -0500 > From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: big is beautiful > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > Of course, this conversation seems to be somewhat limited as to what a "pro" > is. > > More than a few photographers who make a living at this use, for instance M > series Leicas (Salgado, for one, although he also uses R series slr's, and > they ain't small). > > Anyway, my main point is that not all pros are PJ's (not that you said they > were - I'm just expanding the convo a bit), and that some of those other > pros have vastly different needs from their cameras. Increasingly, "pro" in the sense of "guy who makes his living selling photography" photographers are moving to digital out of workflow, client-demand, or economic necessity. I know a guy at the Minneapolis Star Tribune who used to shoot Leica rangefinders for certain sorts of work, but he no longer has this option as the paper is all digital and Leica have been dragging their feet. Certainly there are styles of photography where a small rangefinder makes a lot of sense, or a large format camera, or some other specialized equipement. Unfortunately the non-photography considerations of professional photography often make it hard to use what might otherwise be best. Personally, I would like a camera on which my 28mm lenses have the field of view normally associated with 28mm lenses, but at least in the current situation that isn't going to happen in my job. I think increasingly the guys using MF and rangefinders are amateurs who have the freedom to do what they want rather than what considerations of business dictate. I envy them. DJE
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 #724
> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 04:28:29 GMT > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Screw mount lens to K-mount body > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain > > I recently bought a late model SMC Takumar 50mm lens and adapter and > mounted it to my ZX-5n. It seems for focussing you move the switch to >open the lens and for metering and shooting you have move the switch on >the lens to the stop down mode? It seems very akward and slow. Anyone >care to comment or share some advice? > > Jim Unless you are shooting at wide apertures and can see well enough to focus at working aperture your description is correct. On the earlier screw-mount cameras, the aperture was held open and you had to push a switch on the camera to stop it down and thus meter at working aperture, which was a little more convenient but not much. Late screw-mount cameras (ES, ESII, SP F) had a form of full-aperture metering system like modern cameras and lenses do, but it isn't compatible with the system in modern pentax cameras (different connections and such). My advice would be either to buy a Spotmatic F which could use the lens in a convenient way, or to buy a cheap M 50mm f/2.0 which is a fine lens and will work in a convenient way on the ZX-5n. The new lens is probably the better and cheaper solution. While some Pentax optics may have slipped a little since the screw-mount era, the 50mm lenses have remained good. DJE
card write speed
> > John, you'd know, does it make a difference, or much of difference how fast the > > write speed is of a flash card? If things are buffered anyway? I mean I still > > have to get one, a big one, and I am debating the cost of the faster ones v.s. > > the slower ones and whether any speed gain is that significant. The extra speed is not important for slower working styles. For faster working styles (action, etc) it can be important, especially if you have a small buffer. I have several times switched from my D100 to the lower res D1h for model shoots because I was working fast enough that the D100 was having to stop to write (buffer full) and I was missing shots. > Card write speed is more of a marketing tool than anything, real world > operation is where it counts and there isn't much in camera speed difference > between most cards, see: > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6432 Do check out rob's tests. For "most cards" it probably does not matter much. I wouldn't expect much difference between most manufacturer's high speed offerings. I have a bunch of older Sandisk 128 and 256 MB compact flash cards, baseline models with no high speed qualifications, that I bought myself. The company bought me 2 Microtech Xtreme 256 MB cards and a Lexar 12X 256 card. The speed difference is QUITE noticeable in some conditions. When I'm shooting action at 5fps with the old cards I will sometimes see the camera writing data for some time after the action has stopped. With the new cards, by the time I take the camera down from my eye it is done writing. Of course the buffer on the D1h makes this a non-issue, but the speed difference is noticeable. DJE
Re: DSLR sales
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In a message dated 3/28/2004 1:41:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> My point is that the average shooter probably bought a K1000 years ago >>and >> STILL HAS IT. >Actually, tons of people who bought them sold them. And people who have >bought them more recently, for photography classes usually, turn around >after the >classes and sell them. And move on to something else, usually another >camera >brand, as well. Else they would all be on this list. :-) Pentax made an awful lot of K1000s. A lot of them are still out there. There can't be THAT MANY photo students! Honestly the K1000 has become enough of a cult camera that it is overpriced for photo students and there are better choices nowadays. One of my co-workers, who is adamant that "Canon is better", has a K1000 that he takes mountain biking. He wound up with my 135/3.5 and 24/2.8. DJE
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 #722
> > 1) The numbers somebody posted said that in the last couple of years all > > the companies had sold something like 1.5 to 2 million DSLRs total, most > > of them to pros. Look at the pro photojournalists at any major event and > > you will see a lot of DSLRs (and no film ones). I do see D100s and > > digital rebels in my beat where rich parents who are sort of serious > > about photography buy them to photograph their children. Then they go and > > put Tamron 28-200 lenses on them... > > no, most of them Digital Rebels. it is the single largest selling DSLR model > by a comfortably margin. Those numbers suggest that Nikon sold roughly 200,000 DSLRs, none of them digital rebel class. At least locally, more guys seem to have EOS1Ds and 10Ds. That would suggest that pro and semi-pro DSLRs still account for a substantial chunk of the sales. It still amazes me that Nikon thinks it can sell most of a million D70s this year at $1000 each. A $1000 film camera is still much more capable, and a D70-caliber film camera is only a couple hundred dollars. > > My point is that the average shooter probably bought a K1000 years ago and > > STILL HAS IT. They still work as well as they ever did. > > There are a lot more people in the K1000 market niche than > > the LX market niche, and those folks are not going to run out and buy a > > $1350 DSLR. They're going to get a digital P&S. Remember that P&S was > > really lousy until fairly recently, so anybody mildly serious got an SLR. > > This is no longer the case. > > having it is irrelevant if it's not being used, even if in perfect operating > condition. the only people in the all manual low end market niche are people > in photography classes and most of them are strapped enough for cash or > planning to upgrade to a real camera after the requirements are met that > they will buy used for the semester or two they have to have one. A lot of casual photographers are probably in NO market niche, because they don't intend to replace whatever film camera they have until it breaks. When I'm out and about, I don't see the majority of casual photographers using this year's model, although recently I would say that a majority of them have AF SLRs. Canon is not selling all those film rebels (the best selling camera in the world) to photo students. Perhaps all the people buying K1000s used are photo students or collectors, but there is still a very large market for cheap new film SLRs. > the older cameras require operating systems and peripheral hardware that are > hard to get. there was a column on buying used Pro DSLRs like the DCS520. > the advice was that most of them were not worth buying because they were > worn out. only if you get very lucky will there be one that will have enough > residual physical life to be worth buying. In general, it seems like poor economy to buy a used pro DSLR because they are used hard and likely to be used up, and because at least right now the older models are pretty limited in capability. This might also be said of pro film SLRs, and there is no shortage of those on the used market, and there was even before DSLRs came along. Standardization of peripherals and such has increased, although the ability to get an older DSLR repaired has not. DJE
big is beautiful
>From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Small black cameras do not have the psychological impact with >photographers's >customers that big black cameras do. To a very large percent of the >population's >minds "big black camera" and "pro" are synonymous. I agree that carrying a big black camera and a big black bag tends to get respect. I normally take the camera out of the bag and drape it around my neck when I'm going to sporting events just to make it clear to the guys at the gate why I'm not handing them a ticket. I find that I get a lot less hassle that way. >You better believe that Nikon and Canon know this, and it is why their >top end >cameras are 1/2 again as large as they need to be. No. Nikon has been trying damn hard to make their pro cameras smaller, probably a result of getting an earful over the size of the F4 which many small-handed photogs disliked and even I will admit was HEAVY. A lot of the extra size is for the extra batteries which are needed to drive the things at warp speed, plus the actual warp motors which are not small. Back in the old days, most of the warp drives were external (just like on the Enterprise) and the Nikon F2 and F3 were not much bigger than the Spotmatics or K-series except the full-frame, high eyepoint viewfinders. The top end Nikon and Canon cameras are bigger because they are tougher and more capable than anything else out there, and you just can't shrink that but so much. >So as a pro camera, yes the small size is a fault. As a user's camera, no >it is >not, in fact it is a major benefit. It's not so much that the public doesn't trust pros with small cameras, but that pros don't themselves trust small cameras. Something that small can't be tough enough and capable enough, they think. I remember one member of the white house press corps describing the Nikon 8008, which was the second best camera in the Nikon line at the time, as "a lightweight". My own experience tends to confirm the relatively lower durability of small cameras. DJE
shutter lag
Somebody, perhaps Marnie, was asking about a 300D which was experiencing an "8-9" second shutter lag. I hope this is a mistype! I didn't originally think much of it because I wouldn't expect much of a camera like the 300D. Then it occured to me, if 8-9 seconds rather than .8-.9 seconds is what was meant, that you could shoot the equivalent of TWO ENTIRE ROLLS through an EOS1Dmk2 in that time. Even at .9 seconds you could get 6-7 frames off. The shutter lag in pro DSLRs is down to substantially under 100ms according to the manufacturers. If they could only make a little better pellicule mirror there would be nothing really stopping them from a 15fps DSLR, especially if somebody figures out how to get the shutter out of the loop too. On the "all about the glass" topic, I know a number of action shooters who switched from Nikon to Canon primarily because of the extra frame rate. One of my buddies tells me that he "always gets the ball in the picture" now at 8fps. Canon glass isn't bad, but increasingly I think that it's all about the cameras. Hopefully that'll help the *istD which is a good camera for its price class. DJE
Re: DSLR sales
> > With all the Digital Rebels and other Canons and Nikon DSLRs out > > there, you'd think I'd be seeing them out and about. I was walking 1) The numbers somebody posted said that in the last couple of years all the companies had sold something like 1.5 to 2 million DSLRs total, most of them to pros. Look at the pro photojournalists at any major event and you will see a lot of DSLRs (and no film ones). I do see D100s and digital rebels in my beat where rich parents who are sort of serious about photography buy them to photograph their children. Then they go and put Tamron 28-200 lenses on them... 2) Pentax made a about five million spotmatics, plus another bazillion ME supers, Super Programes, and K1000s. All the other companies likewise have produced millions of film SLRs since the 1950s. That leaves an awful lot of film SLRs still in service. Plenty of people haven't replaced their newer film SLRs let alone their older ones. DSLRs may be all the rage, but they are still not very common, and probably won't be for a while due to the expense. There aren't a lot of Nikon F100s, Canon EOS-3s, or Pentax MZ-Ss out there either (besides the ones pros use) because of the expense. Realistically 2 million DSLRs (many of which have since died, too, since photo-J is hard on cameras) spread over the whole world is not a lot. > > How many did they SELL? Last I looked you could still buy NEW Nikon F3s, > > but I doubt they have been manufactured in recent years. Perhaps they are > > all held by dealers and are counted as "sold" by the manufacturers. > > if they don't sell 95-99% of what they make, they are going to be out of > business very quickly. new F3s were sold already to a dealer who then has > the problem of selling. that's a sold camera and revenue to Nikon. I got the distinct impression that Nikon had made PARTS for an awful lot of F3s because they were selling an awful lot of them to pros. At some point, they noticed AF cameras causing a drop in F3 sales and stopped the production line, simply assembling the heap of F3 parts to meet demand. It would seem to make sense on a low volume product to make a given number all at once and then retool for a new design rather than maintaining a production facility to make a handful a year. > the average shooter will have nothing to do with a K1000. all-manual means > that if they did somehow buy it without having to take a photography course My point is that the average shooter probably bought a K1000 years ago and STILL HAS IT. They still work as well as they ever did. There are a lot more people in the K1000 market niche than the LX market niche, and those folks are not going to run out and buy a $1350 DSLR. They're going to get a digital P&S. Remember that P&S was really lousy until fairly recently, so anybody mildly serious got an SLR. This is no longer the case. > it would be unused after the first two or three rolls of film. low end film > SLR sales probably have plunged to near nothing. I suspect exactly the opposite is true. Canon and Nikon have not introduced a new high-end film SLR in years, but they are working very hard to capture the low-end market with a lot of new, cheap models. Look at the Canon Rebel (the best selling film SLR, I believe) and Digital Rebel and tell me that the companies aren't doing their damnedest to make them even flimsier, cheesier, and cheaper. Again, a lot more people will buy a $150 camera than a $1500 one. OTOH the $800-1000 semi-pro film SLRs are probably a lot less tempting to "advanced amateurs" these days than a cheap DSLR. If Nikon and Canon together have sold a dozen F5/EOS1V cameras this year I'd be surprised. Nikon has said that they will not make another "pro" film SLR (everyone buys F100s, or D1s). > > Interesting numbers, although I wonder if they are a "one-time" thing. > > The market is flooded with used film cameras, and most photographers > > probably have a film camera. Eventually, most folks who want a digital > > camera may have one, and the sales of digital may taper off. I've seen > > DSLRs penetrating into the lowest levels of the professional market > > locally. Eventually, there will be a noticeable number of used DSLRs, > > too. > > it is a one time thing, but any manufacturer who is not part of it in the > next two years it won't be there at all. i figure in 3 years at most, the > serious amateur and pro DSLR market will be saturated Not quite. All the guys who now have EOS1s will have to upgrade to the EOS1mark12s with 16MP sensors and 15 fps, as will all the guys with Nikon DSLRs. Technology is moving faster, and it doesn't seem to be the case that a company can put out one pro SLR every 10 years any more. Last I looked, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, a large daily, was still using original D1s. Most companies budget for replacements every 3-4 years, which leaves a lot of companies still waiting to buy this year's model. In 3-4 years, of
M 150/3.5
> From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >After some delays, I finally got a Pentax M 150/3.5... > >If there is an obvious weakness it is that the minimum focus distance > >is 1.8 meters or thereabouts, which doesn't give much of a "macro". > > The Minolta 49mm achromatic close-up lens #0 will start at 2m (at > infinity) and bring you closer. Easier to use than a ring also. Actually, I don't expect to be doing anything like macro work with it. I merely noted that it wasn't a good choice for macro, especially given the availibility of 100 and 200mm macro lenses. > >Contrast and sharpness in the test roll are not impressive, but the > >conditions of the test may be to blame. I will note that I had never run a scientific test on anything longer than 85mm, since I couldn't get far enough back from my original test target to frame it with a longer lens. It could be that everything longer than 85mm is a bit flat and mushy. > I fired my 150mm after finding the same. It was handheld shots at > 1/125. I may have been impulsive although I find the 150mm focal > length too long for my taste. Actually I fear that it will be too short. I'd have opted for M200/4 except that my girlfriend will be carrying that and it seems dumb to have two of them when the goal is to minimize communal gear. I'd take the A* 300/4 if I still had it. > >Overall, I'm pretty impressed. The SMC-T 150/4 has a very good > >reputation, and replaced an earlier S-T 150/4 that is supposedly weaker at > >wider apertures... > > ...but strong at minimum focusing distance (and with tubes) according > to vintage booklet. Hmm. What do you photograph with a 150 at minimum focus distance? It's a little too long for a portrait lens. Action shots would not likely be taken at 2 meters. > >So, now I have a minimal kit (KX, K30/2.8, M50/1.4, M150/3.5, 1.4xS) > >of gear I like and trust. > > Don't you find a gap at 85mm? I don't know yet--I haven't had any chance to really take this kit out and see if it covers all the bases. I'd think that if I NEEDED an 85 that M50 + 1.4xS would come close enough. Normally I'd carry 105 and 200 instead of 150, but I'm hoping the one lens will cover the other two well enough. My standard rig is 20/28/50/85or105/200. Realistically, this 3-lens rig is for touristy shots of England and I suspect that the 30 and 50 will get most of the use anyway. I always liked 85mm lenses, but recently I'm finding that 85 is too near 50 and a 105 is often a better choice for me. The main advantage of 85s from my point of view is that they are up to a stop faster than 105s. I normally use 85/105 for people shots, to get a certain working distance and level of isolation. For thing shots, I can just walk up closer. > >I'd still like to think that I can find a beat-up M20/4.0 for under $300 > >at some point when I actually have $300 to spend again. > > Indeed, beat-up (Ex-) M20 go for less than 300, when you find one. When indeed. I'll keep my eyes open. I had a couple of reasonable offers for M20s in good shape, but somehow $325 is just a bit more than a 20/4 is worth to me right now, especially with another subsystem of my Ford Escort beginning to act up. Good 20mm lenses in general are a bit hard to come by--I'd considered getting a 20mm screw-mount but the ones that I hear good things about do not appear to be readily availible. DJE
all about the glass
>From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>2) ...there is very little difference in quality between comparable >>lenses from all the manufacturers. >I think it's true that differences are small. And that manufacturers >had a large part of their line comparable with others'. Ironically, if this is true then it's not, as somebody suggested, "all about the glass". It's either "all about the cameras" (which differ a lot more in features and user interface) or "all about the perception of the glass". > For example, >I though until last week that Pentax famous low distorsion (0.5%) >28/3.5 lens was unique in that respect but discovered that the >MC-Rokkor-X 28/3.5 had the same low distorsion figure. One usually sees comparisons within brand, presumably for the benefit of users of that brand who wish to make a choice. You rarely see comparisons across brands. It's not really useful, unless it turns out that most of brand A's lenses are better than the other brands at a given price level. If that were the case, everybody would buy brand A. I don't really think that's why everybody seems to be buying Canon these days. That 28/3.5 design is great in other ways too. It makes Pentax's collection of mediocre 28/2.8 designs a bit of a mystery. Fortunately Pentax also offered the 30, 31, 28/2, etc. >>Increasingly, manufacturers are tailoring optical quality more >>precisely to price class as they learn not only to engineer quality >>in but also to engineer it out. >Still, sometimes you feel a manufacturer has put a bit more for the >price, hoping to sell volumes of that item. This could be true of >the Olympus Stylus with the great 35/2.8. Unfortunately, this is probably true primarily of entry level and generic stuff. Sigma might outsell Tamron across all platforms if they make a better 24-240/4.5-8.0 zoom for the same price, but Pentax isnt' going to sell a better 135/2.8 to somebody with a Nikon camera. (Pity about that--I'd love to put that 135/2.8 IF on my Nikons...) A better P&S lens or starter 28-80 might help sell cameras, though. DJE
